Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Orders Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 1).

Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

CONVALESCENT TRAINING CENTRES.

Mr. HALLAS: 14.
asked the Pensions Minister whether there have been several schemes under consideration for the establishing of convalescent training centres for disabled Service men; and, if so, how many are in operation, how many men are undergoing such training, and at what cost up to date?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The establishment of convalescent centres for the concurrent treatment and training of discharged disabled men has engaged my earnest attention for some time past. Labour and other difficulties have hindered progress, but a centre at Blackpool, to accommodate from 600–1,000 men, will be opened on the 25th November, to be followed by others in different parts of the country. Another large centre at Epsom has been delayed for nearly six months owing to a wage difficulty which has stopped all progress. In addition to these large institutions, smaller centres
have been established. So far the number of men undergoing concurrent treatment and training is negligible, but with the establishment of the larger centres it is hoped within the next few months to have full facilities for 2,500 cases. It is proposed, in addition, to increase the number of smaller centres. Figures of the cost to date are not at present available as the Office of Works is still engaged in the necessary structural alteration of premises.

Mr. EDWARD WOOD: How many men are there for whom no provision has yet been possible?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I am afraid it is impossible to make any estimate of how many could be treated in the convalescent training centres until we are able to sort out the men suitable for those centres.

Captain COOTE: Has there been any difficulty in preparing the necessary buildings for setting up these training centres?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I think the answer to the original question shows that there have been grave difficulties, which I hope are being overcome.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

SPECIAL INSPECTION DEPARTMENT.

Captain LOSEBY: 12.
asked the Pensions Minister if he has been able to establish in regional areas the special inspection or inquiry department recommended by the Select Committee on Pensions, to which all cases unsettled within a fixed time should automatically go, and whose duty it would be to find the cause of delay and punish defaulters?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Among the duties laid upon the regional directors is that of personally investigating causes of complaint and delay in their departments. They are further required to keep accurate statistical returns and progress reports and to furnish copies regularly to headquarters. By means of this statistical check, the regional directors can at once locate any defects in their machinery and take the necessary steps to provide remedies.

DISCHARGED WOMEN (MEDICALLY UNFIT).

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 15.
asked the Pensions Minister how many women were discharged from His Majesty's forces through being declared medically unfit owing to wounds, injury, or disease; whether these women are entitled to gratuities or pensions on the same principle as those granted to men; and, if not, will he consider placing them under the same rule as soldiers discharged for similar reasons?

Captain LOSEBY: 16.
asked the Pensions Minister if he is aware that many women who served their country in various capacities on different fronts during the War, and were thereby incapacitated by sickness and other causes, are not in receipt of Government aid; and if he can give any information in regard to any contemplated action on his part?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Women discharged from the auxiliary corps attached to the Army, Navy, and Air Service are not pensionable by my Department. They are, I understand, granted compensation in some cases under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, and in others under the Injuries in War Compensation Acts. The grants are administered by the Service Department concerned—that is, by the Admiralty, War Office, or Air Ministry, as the case may be. I must refer hon. Members to those Departments for more authoritative or detailed information as to the schemes of compensation and for particulars of the numbers of women concerned. I have received representations on this subject from many quarters within the last few weeks, but I have had no satisfactory evidence that the legitimate claims of these women cannot be met under existing arrangements. I am in communication on the matter with my right hon. Friends the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Secretary of State for War.

Captain LOSEBY: Is the hon. Baronet aware that many of these women, who before their gallant service were quite fit, are now totally incapacitated and in many cases destitute, and will he use his influence in the way of bringing them, if possible, under one Department?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Of course I am not aware of that officially, because I have nothing whatever to do with these claims. If the women referred to were attached to the Army that ques-
tion must be addressed to the War Office, and if to the Navy to the Admiralty, and so on.

FURNITURE (HIRE-PURCHASE SYSTEM).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 11.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he is aware that James Menzies, 51, Alexander Parade, Glasgow, made an application to the Civil Liabilities Commission for a grant to enable him to buy furniture to set up his home which had been broken up owing to his absence on military service; that the Commission admitted his claim and advised him to buy on the hire-purchase system and offered to contribute at the rate of £26 per annum for three months; and whether, in view of the disadvantage of this system, he will instruct the Commission to make the applicant a grant of a reasonable lump sum down to aid him to buy furniture for cash?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Wardle): I have been asked to reply to this question. The facts are substantially as stated. I recognise it as an anomaly that the Regulations governing the award of grants out of the Civil Liabilities Fund should in certain circumstances admit of assistance towards buying furniture on the hire-purchase system, but should not admit of lump sum grants for this purpose. The Ministry are, as a matter of fact, in communication with the Treasury as to the propriety of making any grants at all for such purposes. I will let the hon. Member know as soon as a decision is reached.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a fact that buying furniture on the hire-purchase system is a thriftless method and that you are actually giving this man less than if you gave him nothing at all, and is not the total sum you are giving him here only enough to buy a superior kitchen table or one single bed without a mattress?

Mr. WARDLE: I have already admitted that it is an anomaly.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Have any grants been already made for the purpose of purchasing furniture?

Mr. WARDLE: Does the hon. Member mean in a lump sum or by the hire purchase system?

Mr. SCOTT: In a lump sum.

Mr, WARDLE: Not that I am aware of.

FOREIGN OFFICE (MR. NAMIER).

Mr. RAPER: 2.
asked the Under-secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Namier, who is now employed in the Foreign Office, is a Polish subject and has been recognised as such by the Polish Government?

Sir H. GREENWOOD (Additional Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs): No, Sir. Mr. Namier, as explained in the answer given on the 6th, is a naturalised British subject. The statement in that answer that he becomes a Polish subject, and has been acknowledged as such by the Polish Government, was meant to apply not to Mr. Namier, but to his father. Mr. Namierowski.

HUNGARY.

Mr. SWAN: 4
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether an agreement has been made between Sir George Clerk and the present Hungarian Government conceding the Hungarian railway system to Great Britain or to British concerns?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer is in the negative.

CONSUL-GENERAL AT HANKOW.

Captain HACKING: 6.
asked the Under-secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what compensation has been or will be made to Sir William Wilkinson, late His Majesty's Consul-General at Hankow, China, who is officially declared by the Foreign Office to have rendered valuable service to His Majesty's Government for having, at the request of the Secretary of State to facilitate thereby a scheme of reorganisation, submitted, at great loss and inconvenience, to forego his right under the Orders in Council to remain ten years longer in the service?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is incorrect to say that any Consular officer has a right under Orders in Council to remain in the service till the age of seventy. The Secretary of State can, if he deems it desirable in the general interests of the service, call upon a Consular officer to retire at any stage of his career. This does not, however, apply to the case of Sir W. Wilkinson who, at the time of his retirement, had completed the requisite number of years' service qualify-
ing him for full pension. He was accordingly awarded a pension of £583 6s. 8d. a year, together with a lump sum of £2,135, under the provisions of the Superannuation Act of 1909. Sir William Wilkinson is only one of several Consular officers who, by reason of the scheme of reorganisation now in progress, have been called upon to retire. The Secretary of State has no power to grant special compensation in addition to the award of full pension to which the length of service entitles a Consular officer on retirement.

Captain HACKING: What is the Order in Council by which you could force him to retire below the age of seventy?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I will send the hon. and gallant Gentleman a copy of the Order in Council.

MONTENEGRO.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Count de Salis, envoy at Rome, was sent to Montenegro to inquire into the conditions of that country and to ascertain the desires of the people regarding their annexation by Serbia; whether Count de Salis has now returned and has placed his Report before the Foreign Office; and when the Report will be laid before the House?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It has already been explained fully, in reply to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury on the Motion for the Adjournment on 11th November, why Count de Salis's Report cannot be laid. I have nothing further to add to this statement.

Commander Viscount CURZON: Is it a fact that Gabriele d'Annunzio is preparing an attack on Montenegro?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot answer that question.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it the purpose of the Foreign Office to permit a nation which was one of our Allies to be annexed by another of our Allies, contrary to the wishes of the people of that nation?

Mr. SPEAKER: This question only refers to the Report of Count de Salis.

Mr. MACLEAN: It also refers to the desires of the people regarding annexation by Serbia.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is what Count de Salis was sent to ascertain.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 36.
asked why Montenegro, who declared war unreservedly on the Austrian and German Empires, is now allowed to be in the military possession of Serbia for whom she fought, and whose Army she protected in its retreat; why she was not given a seat at the Peace Conference and did not sign the Peace Treaty; who finances the Greater Serbia propaganda, which is directed to the annexation of Montenegro; when the Report of the Count de Salis, Britain's envoy, reached the Foreign Office; and when it will be laid upon the Table of this House?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: His Majesty's Government are not responsible for the continued occupation of Montenegrin territory by Serbian troops. Montenegro has not been a signatory to any of the Peace Treaties so far concluded at Paris, which did not directly concern the Montenegrin people. The Supreme Council had decided in principle last January that Montenegro should be represented at the Peace Conference, but the decision was left open as to how her representatives should be chosen. I have no information as to who finances propaganda in favour of the annexation of Montenegro to Serbia. Count de Salis's Report reached the Foreign Office on the 4th September, and it has more than once been explained that the document is of a confidential nature, and is not suitable for publication.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

DANISH RED CROSS MISSION.

Mr. SWAN: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether General Denikin has arrested the chiefs of the Danish Red Cross Mission at Kiev, as is stated in a wireless message purporting to come from him; and whether he will take steps to see that they are immediately released?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: His Majesty's Government have no knowledge of the alleged incident referred to by the hon. Member.

COMMUNICATIONS WITH TURKESTAN.

Sir J. D. REES: 5.
asked the Under-secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
whether His Majesty's Government has any evidence that Lenin and his associates are opening direct communications with Turkestan?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative.

BLOCKADE (SOVIET RUSSIA).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the policy indicated in his speech at the Guildhall on the 8th instant, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to continue the form of blockade now in force against Soviet Russia during the winter; and whether he is aware that this form of blockade will cause and is causing intense suffering to innocent women and children in Soviet Russia?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give any intimation that the blockade of Soviet Russia will not be continued when the ice leaves access to Petrograd open, so that shipments can be arranged beforehand?

Major HAYWARD: 63.
asked when naval operations in the Baltic against the Bolsheviks are to cease?

Lord ROBERT CECIL: 77.
asked the Prime Minister whether the blockade of Russian ports is still in force; if not, when orders were given for its removal; and what were the terms of those orders?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): The maritime policy in the Baltic is that of the Allied and Associated Powers, not of this country alone. There has been, in the strict sense of the term, no blockade of Russian ports. We have been engaged in helping the Baltic Provinces in the struggle against Bolshevik Russia which involved the use of the naval forces of the Allied and Associated Powers, to prevent the Bolshevik ships of war from bombarding Baltic ports, and assisting Bolshevik troops and to hinder supplies useful to those troops from entering Bolshevik ports. But this problem is being solved by natural courses as with the formation of ice, both the ships which might have traded with Petrograd and the Allied war ships which might have turned them back, must go elsewhere. It is not proposed that the British Fleet should undertake the patrol of the Baltic in the spring.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can. the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in case of arrangements between the Baltic States and Soviet Russia, any hindrances will be put in the way of traffic between the ice-free ports and Soviet Russia by our Navy?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the hon. Member will take note of what I said he will see that it is not proposed that our Fleet should patrol the Baltic.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Has the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the answer given yesterday by the First Lord of the Admiralty with regard to our intervention in Russia, and can he say whether there has been any change in the policy of the Government as declared by himself in his speech of Monday last?

The PRIME MINISTER: I discussed this very answer with my right hon. Friend this morning before I gave it, and I cannot imagine that there is any change of policy.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has it not been the practice of this House for right hon. or hon. Members not to refer to an answer given by one Minister in putting the same kind of question to another?

Lord R. CECIL: Are we to understand that the policy enunciated by the Under-secretary for Foreign Affairs that this blockade was to continue until there was a democratic Government in Russia, which, we can trust, is not now the policy of the Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know to what answer the right hon. Gentleman refers. He must give me an opportunity of studying these things.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the policy of the Government is based on principle or expediency?

BRITISH SUBJECTS (RECRUITMENT FOR GOVERNMENT SERVICE).

Mr. SWAN: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether British subjects are being recruited by the Russian Embassy for service in Russia under the various Russian Governments; whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the matter; and whether he will ensure that the terms of the Foreign Enlistment Act are being carried out?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 11th instant to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, which still holds good. I shall be very pleased to send my hon. Friend a copy of it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the answer merely stated that the Government knew nothing about it?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not aware of that, and I do not accept that interpretation of the answer.

SPECIAL MISSIONS (LABOUR PARTY REPRESENTATION).

Mr. LUNN: 42 and 43.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of the importance to this country of the special Mission to South Russia which is being undertaken by the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow, he will invite accredited representatives of the Labour party and of the Trades Union Congress to accompany the Mission;
(2) whether, in view of the special Mission to South Russia which is being undertaken by the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow, he will send a similar special Mission, which should be accompanied by accredited representatives of the Labour party and of the Trades Union Congress to Soviet Russia, in order that the policy adopted by this country should be governed by accurate information as to the facts?

The PRIME MINISTER: If one particular party is represented on the Mission, then others can claim a similar privilege, and I do not think it would be advisable that a Government Mission to a foreign country should be accompanied by accredited representatives of political parties.

BRITISH MUNITIONS (ACQUISITION BY BOLSHEVIKS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether any and, if so, what British munitions have fallen into Bolshevik hands, whether by secret trading or surrender; and whether, before more munitions are sent, he will take the probability of their loss into consideration?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have no information with regard to the first part of the question. The consideration referred to in the last part has bus always been borne in mind.

BALTIC STATES (SOVIET NEGOTIATIONS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government are being kept informed as to the negotiations for Peace at Dorpat; and whether he can give the House any information as to how the negotiations are proceeding?

Dr. MURRAY: 71.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Governments of the Baltic States have made a declaration in favour of peace with Soviet Russia?

The PRIME MINISTER: A Conference is actually taking place at Dorpat, attended by representatives of the Provisional Governments of the Baltic States to decide on their attitude with regard to the peace proposals of the Soviet Government. The British High Commissioner will keep His Majesty's Government informed of the progress of the negotiations, but no information has yet been received.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are any States represented besides Esthonia, Latvia, and Lithuania? Is Poland represented, or Finland?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that Poland is represented. I am not sure about Finland, but I understand that they are watching the proceedings.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May we take it that these States are left perfectly free to conduct negotiations?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have already said so.

INTER-ALLIED CONFERENCE.

Mr. RARER: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the importance of a prompt settlement of the Russian question and the delay which will be incurred if we waited for this matter to be dealt with by the League of Nations, he was prepared to take the initiative in calling an Inter-Allied Conference to consider and, if possible, to settle the Russian question?

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 75.
asked the Prime Minister when the International Conference which was to discuss the question of Russia would take place; what Powers or de facto Governments would be represented; and what would be the terms of reference to this Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: A Conference is to be held of the Allied and Associated. Powers, but the date is not yet fixed. I can make no further statement.

Mr. RAPER: May I ask where the Conference will be held?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is not; settled. I was hoping it would be held in London. That is one of the subjects for discussion.

Mr. BILLING: Are we to assume that the Conference is as to whether we shall recognise the Soviet Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is not in the question. The reference is to Allied and Associated Governments.

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that it is not the policy, and never will be the policy, of the Government to recognise the Soviet Government?

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Are we to assume that it has not yet been decided what factions of Russia will be called to the Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is another question in reference to that later on.

Mr. RAPER: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he would consider the advisability of inviting to a conference representatives of the so called border States, formerly appertaining to the Russian Empire, namely, Finland, Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Bessarabia, Don, Kuban, and the Caucasian Republics, as well as representatives of General Denikin, with a view to their endeavouring to compose territorial, political, and economic differences on federative lines?

The PRIME MINISTER: This, no doubt, will be considered amongst other suggestions at the Inter-Allied Conference.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the Ukraine also be included in this list?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am referring only to the list on the Paper.

ADMIRAL KOLTCHAK, GENERAL DENIKIN AND GENERAL YUDENITCH.

Mr. BRIANT: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether he had any information that M. Brotkin, formerly Russian Ambassador in Rome, had gone on a special mission from Admiral Koltchak to Berlin?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to M. Botkine, formerly First Secretary of the Russian Embassy in Berlin. If this is the case, I understand that this gentleman has been entrusted with the protection of Russian interests in Germany, and has been instructed by M. Sazonoff to act in full accordance with the representatives of the Allied Powers in Berlin.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that peace has been made between Admiral Koltchak's Government or Sazonoff's Government and Germany?

Mr. HOGGE: 68.
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether any agreements were made by or on behalf of the British Government or by the Allied and Associated Governments with Admiral Koltchak, General Denikin, or General Yudenitch; and, if so, whether the agreement or agreements will be laid upon the Table of the House; and (2) whether any undertakings were given or promises made, by or on behalf of the British Government, to Admiral Koltchak, General Denikin, and General Yudenitch, respectively; and, if so, will he state what were their terms?

The PRIME MINISTER: The only promise made by the Allies to the combatant forces in Russia was contained in the Allied Note to Admiral Koltchak of July last. This has already been fully published.

Mr. BILLING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say "Yes" or "No" as to whether it is the intention of the Government to recognise the Soviet Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: That does not arise out of any of these questions. I have already made two or three clear statements.

BOLSHEVIK ATROCITIES (PHOTOGRAPHS).

Commander Viscount CURZON: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether any photographs, official or otherwise, were known to have been taken of the state of Odessa after its capture by General Denikin's force; and, if so, whether the photographs could be seen, and where?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): Although it is quite possible that such photographs may have been taken, the War Office is not in possession of them and has no definite knowledge of their existence. I under-
stand that the same is true as regards the Foreign Office. I have seen photographs of Bolshevik atrocities in other towns in South Russia, which are the private property of officers who have returned from the front. A good many of these have been given to the newspapers, and some have been published. If my hon. and gallant Friend would like to see the photographs I will put him in touch with the officer who has them. They are of a very painful nature.

PSYCHO-THERAPY (TREATMENT OF EX-SERVICE MEN).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 17.
asked the Pensions Minister whether he proposes to establish throughout the country cliniques for the treatment by means of psychotherapy of functional nervous affections (including so-called shell-shock); whether, if he is to do so, he will issue instructions that all pensioners recommended to these cliniques for treatment will be informed of the nature of psycho-therapy, that it is a form of treatment in which more or less hypnotic suggestion is used; and whether, in the event of pensioners refusing to accept psycho-therapeutic treatment, he will ensure that the pensioners in question will not be prejudiced by such refusal, but that all pensioners will have offered to them the alternative of ordinary therapeutic treatment?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the remainder of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that psycho-therapy is a comprehensive term, including many forms of treatment of which hypnotic suggestion is the form least frequently used. If in any case hypnotism should be proposed as the most desirable form of treatment the man would be perfectly free to refuse it, and no penalty whatever would attach to his refusal.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

IRELAND (LOCAL SCHEMES).

Major O'NEILL: 18 and 19.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland (1) how many local authorities have power to submit schemes under the Irish Housing Act; how many of these have so far done so;
(2) how many houses have been built under the provisions of the Irish Housing Act; how many are in course of erection; and in respect of how many have schemes been submitted by the local authorities concerned?

Mr. DONALD: 22.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland what is the delay in carrying out, the housing scheme in Ireland; if he will give the number of local authorities who are applying the Act; and what progress they have made in the erection of houses?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): The number of local authorities affected by Section 1 of the Housing (Ireland) Act, 1919, is 127, and of these ninety-nine have submitted schemes for the purposes of the Section. Two houses are almost completed. The number of houses proposed to be provided ultimately is 51,317. There has been no undue delay. The Act became law only on 15th August last, and since then the local authorities have lost no time in considering the possibilities offered by the financial arrangements.

Sir E. CARSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the scheme is working satisfactorily in Ireland?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I think it will work very satisfactorily.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many urban councils, having considered this scheme, have found that the requirements of the Local Government Board as to the type of house to be built are of such a character as to prohibit these councils from proceeding with a scheme? Will he instruct the Local Government Board to amend their proposals, so that by reasonable expenditure the urban councils may be induced to proceed with the houses which are so badly needed?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I will instruct the Local Government Board to reconsider the proposals which they have sent forward, and I will endeavour to get them to consider buildings such as they are anxious to erect.

Captain REDMOND: Is it not a fact that the Housing Act in Ireland has been found utterly unworkable, just as the Housing Act in this country has been found likewise; and is it proposed to come to the assistance of the Irish authorities to the same extent and in the same way us the
Government are coming to the assistance of the English authorities, according to the announcements in the Press this morning?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot agree that the Irish Housing Act has been found unworkable. It is a very remarkable fact that ninety-nine local authorities out of 127 have already submitted schemes.

Captain REDMOND: Is it not a fact that, although they have submitted schemes, those schemes have been found to be unworkable, either by the authorities or the Local Government Board?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot accept that statement.

Major O'NEILL: 21.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland how many applications for houses under the Labourers Acts have been received since the Armistice; how many of such applications have been granted; and in respect of how many houses have building operations been started?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The records of the-Local Government Board are not compiled in such a way as to enable the information asked for in the first part of the question to be given. The information could only be obtained by applying to each of the rural district councils. Assuming, however, that what my hon. and gallant Friend requires relates to matters, of which the Board have cognisance, it appears that no improvement scheme proposing to provide new cottages under the Labourers Acts has been lodged for confirmation with the Board since the Armistice. The finance of such schemes out of land purchase funds is limited at present to cases where an urgent necessity exists for providing additional housing accommodation.

STATUE TO MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN.

Mr. HOGGE: 25.
asked the Prime Minister how many of the statues to distinguished statesmen in the Lobbies were provided from public or private funds; whether the most recent statue to the late Sir William Harcourt was provided by private subscription; and whether, in view of this practice, the Government will reconsider the decision to provide a statue from public moneys to the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is the fact as implied in the question that the statue to Sir William Harcourt was paid for by private subscription, but a large number of statues have been erected at the public expense. In recent years statues provided out of public funds have been erected to Mr. Gladstone, Lord Beaconsfield, Lord Salisbury, and Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and, in my opinion, it would be the wish of the House of Commons that the statue to Mr. Chamberlain, who was for so long one of the greatest figures in this House, should be erected by the nation.

Mr. J. JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange that one shall be erected to the hon. Member for East Edinburgh?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 26.
asked when the Supplementary Estimates for the Royal Navy will be presented?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope that it may be possible to introduce the Navy Estimates at an early date.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEVOLUTION (MR. SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE).

WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the sittings, now proceeding, of Mr. Speaker's Conference on Devolution and to a right understanding of the people of Wales and Monmouthshire of the financial responsibilities involved in any scheme constituting such an area a self-governing unit, he will direct the Treasury to prepare such a financial Return as will indicate, approximately, the total revenue received, and the total contributions made, by the Imperial Exchequer under each county, showing the particular source and service affected in respect of Wales and Monmouthshire?

Major BREESE: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether in view of the sittings, now proceeding, of Mr. Speaker's Conference on Devolution and to a right under standing by the people of Wales and Monmouthshire of the financial responsibilities involved in any scheme constituting such an area a self-governing unit, he will
direct the Treasury to prepare such a financial Return as will indicate approximately the total revenue received and the total contributions made by the Imperial Exchequer, under each county, showing the particular source and service affected in respect of Wales and Monmouthshire?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): If the Conference desire this information the Treasury will do their best to supply it.

Sir R. THOMAS: Does the hon. Gentleman not think it absolutely essential for the Welsh party to have this information in order to consider the whole subject and give instructions to their representatives on the Royal Commission?

Mr. BALDWIN: Certainly. I agree with the hon. Member, but I would warn him that it will be very difficult to get very accurate figures of the nature he desires, and there will be a large element of error; but we will do our best.

Sir R. THOMAS: The question asks for approximate figures. Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that we have made representations to the Treasury for this information, which is absolutely essential, in order to consider this very important question, and the information has been refused?

Mr. BALDWIN: I think my answer covers the point.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO PRIME MINISTER.

Mr. HOGGE: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that he is only able to answer questions on Thursdays, he will arrange on that day that his questions begin at No. 1?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that the present arrangement will meet the general wishes of the House.

Major O'NEILL: 52.
asked the Prime Minister for how long it was proposed to continue the arrangement whereby the first question on Thursdays answered by him was No. 25?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is proposed to continue this arrangement as long as it meets the general convenience of the House.

Major O'NEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Thursday is the only day in the week upon which it is possible to get answers from the Chief Secre-
tary for Ireland, and that this arrangement means that some of the most important questions cannot be answered verbally?

Mr. E. WOOD: May I ask whether, in view of the great strain it must be on him to answer fifty-six questions in one day, he would not consider the possibility of coining to the House a second day?

Captain REDMOND: May I ask whether, in view of the great strain which is laid upon the right hon. Gentleman in coming to the House one day a week, it might be possible for him to pass on a few of these questions to the heads of the various Departments on the Front Bench, and also to answer about six questions together?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is nothing that would please me better than to pass on all my questions to my right hon. and hon. Friends. I can quite see the inconvenience of this arrangement. I will see whether arrangements can be made whereby the many Irish questions could be put in front of mine.
At the end of Questions, the right hon. Gentleman said: I do not know whether I can appeal to hon. Members to give a little longer notice of questions which they address to me, especially those dealing with foreign policy. They involve a good deal of consultation, not merely with one Department but often with three or four Departments. They are very delicate and very difficult questions, and, of course, every question of this kind has its bearing upon other nations as well. They take a good deal of time, and I shall be very grateful to hon. Members if they will put their questions as early as possible, so as to give me time for consultation with the Departments.

Oral Answers to Questions — PREMIUM BONDS.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 31.
asked the Prime Minister what day the Government propose to set apart for the discussion on Investment and Premium Bonds?

The PRIME MINISTER: This question will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in his statement on Business at the end of Questions.

Mr. G. THORN E: 62.
asked the Prime Minister whether he had received any representations from religious bodies as to the issue of Premium or Lottery Bonds?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. HOGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has received any resolution from the Particular Baptists in Wales?

Oral Answers to Questions — HONOURS (RECOMMENDATIONS).

Brigadier-General CROFT: 32.
asked the Prime Minister if he has now considered the proposal made in this House during his absence in Paris that a Committee of the Privy Council should be appointed to assist him in inquiring into the character of, and the services rendered by, gentlemen recommended for honours?

The PRIME MINISTER: For reasons stated when the subject was discussed in the House, I am not prepared to adopt this suggestion.

General CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while he was engaged in pressing business in Paris these recommendations were sent forward by his advisers by which gentlemen received honours who were clearly unworthy to receive them?

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIAN PEACE TREATY.

Mr. A. T. DAVIES: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Peace Treaty with Austria provides, in a manner which will be binding on Austrian Nationals under Austrian law, that liabilities in Austrian currency to British subjects are to be discharged in sterling at the pre-war rate of exchange; in view of the provision contained in the Treaty charging Austrian assets in this country with payment of Austrian liabilities to creditors in this country, what steps will be taken to give practical effect to such charge by distributing such assets amongst those creditors, and when will such steps be taken; and when, will the full text of the Peace Treaty with Austria be published and copies available for sale to the public in this country?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Geddes): I have been asked to reply. The Peace Treaty with Austria provides that liabilities in Austrian currency shall be discharged in sterling at the pre-war rate of exchange. Legislation in Austria may be necessary to make the provision binding on Austrian individuals.
Steps cannot be taken to distribute Austrian assets among British creditors until it is seen how far Austrian liabilities are paid. The last part of the question will be answered by the Prime Minister in connection with the question next on the Paper.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 34.
asked when the Austrian Peace Treaty will be presented to the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: Unless unforeseen delay occurs, copies of the Treaty of Peace with Austria will be in the hands of Members on the 25th November.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will it be introduced in the form of a Bill, as was done in the case of the German Treaty, and open to discussion by this honourable House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not sure that that will be necessary. I am not prepared to give an answer now. We will have some discussion, but I am not sure that a Bill will be necessary.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is not this Treaty as vital as the German Treaty?

Oral Answers to Questions — TREATY OF PEACE.

INDEMNITY FROM GERMANY.

Mr. RAPER: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the sums to be paid by Germany to the Allied and Associated Powers, in accordance with Article 259 of the Peace Treaty, would be handed over to liquidate the currency notes issued by the Ottoman Debt against the German Government guarantee?

Mr. BALDWIN: The disposal of the sums in question will in due course be determined by the Allied and Associated Powers in accordance with Clause 7 of Article 259. It is impossible at the present moment to forecast what decision will be taken.

BRITISH TEADEES IN FRANCE (PAYMENT OF DAMAGES).

Major COURTHOPE: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether the British Ambassador was instructed in 1918 to inform the French Government that His Majesty's Government was prepared to enter into an agreement with regard to reciprocal payment of compensation in
respect of damages caused by the War, and to inquire in what form the French Government would desire such an agreement to be concluded; whether such agreement has ever been entered into, and what prospect there is of the British sufferers, whose claims amount to many millions, being able to obtain adequate compensation for their losses in France; and whether His Majesty's Government is aware of the loss being suffered by British traders in France owing to delay in settlement of this question, and that they have to stand by whilst their French competitors are ousting them from their positions?

Mr. BALDWIN: I understand that a suggestion was made to the French Government that an agreement should be arrived at in which British subjects who had suffered damage in France should receive compensation from the French Government on the same terms as French subjects, while French subjects who had suffered damage in the United Kingdom would reciprocally receive compensation on the same terms as British subjects. No such agreement has, however, been made, but a proposal was in fact made by the French Government that they should advance compensation to British subjects in France on the same basis as compensation payable to French subjects in return for an advance by His Majesty's Government to French subjects in this country. This proposal would, in effect, result in giving preferential treatment to one particular class of claimants amongst those British subjects who have legitimate, claims against Germany under the Reparation Clauses of the Treaty, and it is, for this reason, impossible to entertain it.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 37.
asked when it is proposed to take the next stage of the Government of India Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend (Mr. Bonar Law) will answer when he makes his statement as to the Business of the House.

Colonel YATE: I beg to ask the Leader of the House whether he can give me a reply to the question, of which I gave him private notice yesterday, to this effect:
What time is to be allowed to the House for the perusal of all the Papers published with the Report of the Joint Select Committee on the Government of India Bill before the Bill is brought up for consideration in Committee of the Whole House?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I have considered the question of my hon. and gallant Friend, and we have decided that this will not be taken at the beginning of next week, as contemplated, but on Thursday of next week.

Colonel YATE: Does my right hon. Friend think that one week is sufficient for us to study this document, which was published yesterday, and are we not to be allowed to have any opportunity of hearing the opinions of the Governors and the peoples of India on the Report of the Joint Committee, seeing that that Committee entirely amended the Bill? Will he not give further time?

Sir J. D. REES: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is already disappointment in India at the delay which has occurred in carrying out the policy announced by the Government, and accepted by Parliament?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As my hon. Friend presents the document, it looks very formidable, but that big; volume is mainly composed of evidence which has largely appeared in the Press, and, therefore, those who are interested in it have, I am sure, followed it closely. The fact is, as I said yesterday, if this Bill is to be carried at all, and if it is to do any good, it is essential that there should not be delay. We must therefore press it forward, and I do hope my hon. Friend and the House will realise that it is necessary to get the Bill before the House adjourns.

Colonel YATE: May I ask you, Sir, whether I shall be in order to move the Adjournment of the House on this very important question of what procedure it will be proper to take to enable the House to have sufficient time for this?

Mr. SPEAKER: As I pointed out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman yesterday, I think his proper procedure is, when the Committee is called and the House starts work, if he thinks sufficient time has not been given, to move to report Progress in order that the House may have more time.

Colonel YATE: Thank you, Sir; I will do so.

FOREIGN TRADE.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: 40.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government intend to give effect to any and, if so, which of the recommendations of the Committee which has recently reported on the machinery best adapted for dealing with and promoting foreign trade; and if, in view of the disadvantage under which this country has laboured in the past in competition with foreign rivals owing to the defective organisation of and the unsatisfactory business experience demanded for the Consular service, the Government will arrange for appointments to this service to be primarily controlled by the Department whose main function is to promote foreign trade?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: If, as I assume, the reference is to the majority Report of the Committee of which Lord Cave was chairman, I am happy to be able to say that, in so far as the recommendations in that Report required action, the necessary action has been or is being taken, and in particular that the administration of the Consular Department of the Foreign Office has been transferred to the Department of Oversea Trade. In this connection I may also refer my hon. Friend to the answer which was given on the 18th instant to the hon. Member for Newcastle.

Mr. RARER: Will the Department of the hon. Gentleman pay sufficient salaries to enable them to secure the services as commercial attachés of first-class business men instead of superior office boys as at present.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: While I cannot admit the last part of my hon. Friend's question, it is for this House and the Treasury to increase salaries which I think are inadequate.

Sir F. HALL: When are the recommendations of this Committee likely to be put in force?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is part of the answer which I have given my hon. Friend. The recommendations have been or are being put into force.

Mr. J. JONES: In view of the passing of the Aliens Act, is it desirable that we should trade with aliens at all?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL TUNNEL

PROMOTION OF PRIVATE BILL.

Sir A. FELL: 41.
asked the Prime Minister if he can arrange for the Government to receive the advice of the War Office and Admiralty on the question of the Channel Tunnel in time to render the deposit of the Bill in Parliament this December possible, so that it may, if the Standing Orders are dispensed with, proceed next Session, and, if passed, save a whole year's time in the construction of the tunnel?

The PRIME MINISTER: The War Office and Admiralty are examining this question as quickly as possible, and I shall let my hon. Friend know when I am in a position to answer his question.

Sir A. FELL: May we have some hope that this will be done in time to enable the Bill to be deposited in December this year?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can quite see the force of my hon. Friend's appeal, and I will certainly do what I can to have a decision in time to enable the promoters to give the necessary notice this year.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

PRIME MINISTER'S APPEAL TO NATION.

Sir M. BARLOW: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statements made by or on behalf of the Ministry of Food that there will be a great shortage of food during the coming months; whether the Cabinet have considered the matter of such shortage; and whether, if it is coming, he will take steps, as in war-time, to urge all the nation to grow more food?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of the particular statements to which my hon. Friend refers, but I do not anticipate any serious shortage of essential foodstuffs in this country during the coming months. I have, however, recently and repeatedly urged upon all food-producers the importance of increased production, and the necessary legislation to promote this end will shortly be introduced.

Sir M. BARLOW: Will the Prime Minister undertake that some statement shall be issued similar to that which was issued during the War?

The PRIME MINISTER: If my hon. Friend means with regard to food production I did make a special appeal to agriculturists a short time ago, and I propose to repeat that to the Scottish agriculturists later on. I agree with him that it is very important that all those are who concerned with food production should exert their powers to the utmost.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Food Controller is going to give a better quality of bacon, otherwise there will be plenty of it left over?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS REGULATION BILL.

MY. REMER: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he could state when the Anti-Dumping Bill would be introduced?

Mr. G. TERRELL: 53.
asked the Prime Minister when it was definitely intended to introduce the promised Bills for the prevention of dumping and for the protection of key industries; and whether the Government proposed to make every effort to pass them into law before Christmas?

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 60.
asked the Prime Minister when the Second Reading of the Anti-Dumping Bill would be taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: It was introduced yesterday. I hope that it may be possible to pass the Bill this Session. The Second Reading will, I understand, be taken in the week after next.

Mr. RAPER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no Bill obtainable yet at the Vote Office?

Mr. FRANCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to attach to the Bill a list of the key industries referred to in the Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think my hon. Friend will see that they are attached to the Bill and are in the Schedule. I am sorry that there is no Bill available. It was introduced yesterday and I hope it will be in the hands of Members shortly. It is purely a question of printing.

Major M. WOOD: 56.
asked the Prime Minister how long imports would be restricted by proclamation under the Customs
Consolidation Act; and whether provision for an indemnity against this illegal action would be taken in the Anti-Dumping Bill?

Sir A. GEDDES: It is contemplated that the Proclamations issued under the Customs Consolidation Act which impose prohibitions of importation will remain in force until they are superseded, so far as may be necessary, by orders under the Imports and Exports Regulation Bill which was introduced yesterday. His Majesty's Government are not prepared to admit that the issue of Proclamations prohibiting imports under the Customs Consolidation Act has been illegal.

Major WOOD: Was the opinion of the Law Officers taken on this matter?

Sir A. GEDDES: Naturally, yes.

AGRICULTURAL LAND TENURE.

Major M. WOOD: 55.
asked the Prime Minister when the Bill giving security of tenure to farmers will be introduced?

The PRIME MINISTER: This matter is under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to state when the new Bill will be introduced.

Major WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if this Bill is not introduced soon there will be very few tenant farmers left to secure?

VIENNA (RELIEF OF DISTRESS).

Major GLYN: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether the attention of the Government had been called to the present situation in Vienna; whether urgent appeals from the Government in Vienna had been recently received making further demands upon this country for food and wearing material; whether these demands, which were the concern of all the Allied Powers, would impose a heavy extra burden upon the Treasury; what was the approximate aid that had already been given to the Government in Vienna by the British for the relief of the distressed population of Austria, both in money and goods; and what was the immediate policy of His Majesty's Government in this matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the fourth
part, the British share amounts to £3,500,000. As regards the last part, as discussions are still proceeding with our Allies, I can make no statement.

General CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that no further supplies will be sent to Vienna in preference to our loyal Allies in Russia?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Could not an arrangement be come to whereby we supplied raw material to the people in Vienna, so that they could feed themselves, instead of supplying them merely with food, which keeps them alive without any definite possibility of reconstruction?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is another question by the same hon. and gallant Member later on. We cannot undertake the whole responsibility. Unless the United States is prepared to come in to assist, it is quite impossible for us, much as we sympathise with the distress in that part of Europe.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that if the Soviet Government goes into the world market to buy, there will be so much less for Bulgaria and Turkey?

Lord R. CECIL: 76.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the reports of the very serious economic conditions in Vienna; whether the Government have received any information on the subject; and, if so, whether they can make any statement thereon to the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: Attention has been drawn to the situation in Vienna. The Government are in receipt of information from the British representative (Mr. Lindley) and from the British Relief Mission on the spot. The general economic situation in Austria is at present under discussion by the Allied Governments, in consequence of a report which has been received from the Sub-Commission of the Reparations Commission at Vienna. For the moment it is not possible to make any detailed statement on the question to the House, but I think it right to say that I see no hope of adequate relief of the situation in Vienna without the cooperation of the United States.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: And Russia!

Lord R. CECIL: May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman will be able to have
Papers laid on the Table on this subject, because he will realise that it is a matter which affects not only Austria, but possibly the peace of the whole world?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to confer with the Foreign Secretary before answering that question.

SOUTH-EASTERN EUKOPE (FAMINE).

Major GLYN: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether Mr. Hoover, the American representative charged with the investigation of famine conditions in Europe during the recent War, had reported that the present starving condition of Austria, Hungary, and certain parts of the Balkans called for immediate relief; and whether the British Government intended to continue to bear the greater part of the burden of this relief, or whether the Government intended to represent to the United States Government the advisability of encouraging the American public, as advised by Mr. Hoover, to subscribe to the relief of this distress, on account of the financial position of this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: No statement has been received from Mr. Hoover since he returned to America in the early part of September. His Majesty's Government do not intend to continue to bear the greater part of the burden of this relief. Whether the American public should be officially encouraged to subscribe to funds for the relief of Austrian distress is a matter solely for the consideration of the United States Government, and is one in which I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member will understand that it is not possible for His Majesty's Government to intervene.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand the futility of feeding the people when they cannot get work? It might go on for ever.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

Captain W. BENN: 61.
asked the Prime Minister whether he could state when the Bill dealing with the government of Ireland would be introduced?

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: 80.
asked the Prime Minister whether he was in a position to say when a statement would be made by the Government of their policy with regard to Ireland?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government hope to be in a position to make a statement shortly.

RAID ON BRITISH SHIP (CORK).

Mr. DONALD: 92.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention has been drawn to a raid made by armed Sinn Feiners on the British ship "Minna Horn" whilst discharging a cargo of grain at Cork; whether the first; officer, accompanied by his wife and child, were held up by armed men pointing revolvers at their heads on the ship's deck; if any arrests were made; and will he take steps to protect British seamen coming into. Cork and Dublin by putting armed blue jackets on board on these ships' arrival?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The facts are, unfortunately, substantially as stated in the question. The first officer, hearing a noise, came to the door of his berth, and saw standing at the end of the passage with a revolver in his hand a man, who called to him to stand back and shut the door. His wife and child remained in the berth, and were not held up or otherwise interfered with. No arrests have been made. The matter referred to in the last part of the question is one for my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty.

POLITICAL OFFENDERS.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 93.
asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether an undertaking was given by the Irish Government that prisoners whose offences were definitely political should be treated under the rules known in England as the Churchill rules; how many prisoners at present in confinement are receiving the benefit of this treatment; whether such treatment, once accorded, has been in any case withdrawn; if so, in how many instances, for what periods, and for what reasons; and whether any difference is made in respect of such treatment between the different gaols in which political prisoners are confined?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The Churchill rule was promulgated in Ireland on 24th October, 1910, by the Irish Government, and since that date it has been automati-
cally and invariably applied in all appropriate cases; 63 prisoners are receiving special ameliorative treatment, involving more extensive privileges than could be granted under the Churchill rule. This special treatment is applicable to all prisoners who in the popular phrase are "political prisoners," and who have not been guilty of acts which are criminal per se. Ameliorations have been withdrawn for misconduct in 282 cases, in 101 of which ameliorations were restored within periods varying from seven days to five and a half months. The treatment is uniform as far as possible, consistent with varied structural and other circumstances of different prisons.

PROFITEERING ACT (BELFAST).

MR. T. MOLES (by Private Notice): asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he received on the 5th November, 1919, a copy of a resolution passed by the Belfast Corporation on 3rd November, registering their intention to appoint a local committee under the Profiteering Act; whether it is a fact that no acknowledgment of the receipt of the resolution was sent to the corporation; whether he has also received an urgent telegram from the corporation protesting against the delay in this matter; and whether he will take immediate steps to have the request of the corporation expedited?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am afraid, Sir that I have no personal knowledge of the matters referred to in this question, and I regret that as notice of my hon. Friend's intention to ask it did not reach me until a few minutes before I had to leave my office to come to the House, I have not had time to make the necessary inquiries. I will look into the matter immediately and communicate with my hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

OWNERS' PROFITS.

Mr. HOLMES: 65.
asked the Prime Minister when the Bill is to be introduced which is to provide for the limitation of coal-owners' profits to 1s. 2d. per ton?

Sir A. GEDDES: I hope it may be possible to introduce this Bill next week.

ORGANISATION PROPOSALS.

Mr. HOLMES: 67.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state when the
Bill will be introduced for the purpose of giving effect to the proposals which he announced for the future organisation of the coal industry?

Sir A. GEDDES: I cannot at present state the date when the Government will be ready to introduce this Bill.

Mr. HOLMES: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be in a position to do so?

Sir A. GEDDES: Not before Christmas.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT ADMINISTRATION.

RAILWAY STRIKE (COST).

Mr. HOLMES: 66.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement as to the total cost to the Government of the railway strike, including the cost of the Government's preparations since February?

Mr. BALDWIN: A statement of the total cost to the Government of the railway strike is at present in course of preparation, but the figures are not yet complete. Meanwhile, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which was given to similar questions on the 27th ultimo by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

RAILWAY MANAGEMENT (NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. HOGGE: 70.
asked the Prime Minister whether and, if so, when he will make a statement to the House as to the Government's proposals for the future management of the railways?

The PRIME MINISTER: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Railway Advisory Committee which it is proposed to set up. The question is still under discussion. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is now discussing with the railway companies and the railway trades unions the composition of the Committee, and he will no doubt be able to make a statement at an early date.

Mr. HOGGE: May I ask whether the arrangement contained in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) gives the Government scheme, and if it does not does the right hon. Gentleman propose to give the House of Commons the Government scheme before any private Member of the House gives it to the public?

Mr. THOMAS: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask whether it was not in accord with all the negotiations with the Government that the men affected should be informed of them in the usual way?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I have not had the opportunity of reading the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Thomas) speech, and therefore I do not know what its exact terms were. There is no secret of the fact that certain proposals were put before the trade union representatives, and they are now the subject of discussion. The moment the discussions come to an end and an arrangement is arrived at it will be communicated to the House. I do hope the course of the negotiations will not be imperilled by premature discussions. There is a real desire on the part of the Railway Executive and the managers of the companies and the trade unions to come to an understanding on this subject.

Mr. HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is increasing dissatisfaction amongst Members of this House at Government negotiations being disclosed outside the House before they are discussed by Members of this House?

Mr. TERRELL: May I ask if the House is to be given an opportunity of considering any scheme for joint control or joint management by trade unions in railway matters before any definite decision is arrived at?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have already stated that the moment there is a provisional arrangement entered into with the trade unions and the Railway Executive on the subject, that will be submitted to the House of Commons, and if the House wishes to have a discussion it can do so.

Mr. J. JONES: Are trade union officials to be barred from reporting to their members the results of negotiations with employers, whether Government or private?

Colonel GRETTON: 74.
asked the Prime Minister why the heads of the agreement between the Government and the representatives of the National Union of Railwaymen which appeared in the newspapers were not announced by a Minister to Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have not issued any statement on this subject, and the matter is still subject to negotiation.

Colonel GRETTON: Do I understand that no agreement has been reached, and that the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) are premature and unauthorised?

The PRIME MINISTER: I did not see the statements made by the hon. Member, and therefore I cannot contradict them.

Mr. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any breach of confidence or any departure from usual trade union negotiations for the leader of the men to convey to the men an offer from the Government, and, if so, and furthermore, what hope would there be of the leader being able to carry out the proposals unless he took an opportunity of recommending them to the members of the union?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is very difficult to express an opinion on statements which I have not seen. I fully realise the difficulty the right hon. Gentleman has in negotiating on behalf of hundreds of thousands of men, and I have no doubt that from time to time he has to take them into consultation before final decisions are taken. I should be very reluctant to express an opinion, and I hope the House will not press me to do so. They are very difficult negotiations, and I do not want in the least to jeopardise them by any declarations which might prejudice the matter.

DRINK TRAFFIC (WALES).

Mr. HAYDN JONES: 73.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in any contemplated legislation for the control of the drink traffic, and having regard to the fact that Wales has already been the subject of special treatment, he will arrange for the setting up of a separate Commission for Wales and Monmouthshire, consisting of persons having knowledge of Welsh conditions and conversant with the Welsh language?

The PRIME MINISTER: I must ask the hon. Member to wait for the Government Bill, which will very shortly be introduced.
I can, in the meantime, assure him that the special position of Wales is being taken into account.

Dr. MURRAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Bill will be introduced?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot indicate the date at present, but I hope it will be introduced before the Recess.

ARMENIA

Lord R. CECIL: 78.
asked the Prime Minister what is the present position of the Armenians; and what steps, if any, the Government have found it possible to take to save the remnants of this allied nation from final extinction?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The representatives of His Majesty's Government in the Caucasus have been endeavouring, not without success, to promote a friendly understanding and arrangements between the Armenians and the Governments of the neighbouring States, and the situation has, in consequence, been less anxious.

Lord R. CECIL: May I ask whether that applies to what is called Russian Armenia; and what steps are being taken in respect of Turkish Armenia, which is much more serious?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must ask the Noble Lord to give notice of that question, because I have given the reply handed to me by the Foreign Office, and I cannot add anything.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Would the Prime Minister be willing to receive an influential deputation dealing with this very important matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will consider that.

RECRUITING (WALES).

Brigadier - General Sir OWEN THOMAS: 81.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the extraordinary success of recruiting in Wales for the Welsh Army by Welsh officers, as initiated by him during the War, he can now see his way clear to advise the appointment of Welsh-speaking, or at least Welsh understanding, officers to command Welsh Territorial units?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Every consideration will be given to the hon. and gallant Member's proposal, but I am not in a position to make any definite statement on the subject at the present stage.

UNEMPLOYMENT.

Brigadier-General CROFT: 82.
asked the Lord Privy Seal what number of posters, entitled "the Prime Minister to Employers," were printed in the large size and in the small size; what number were posted; what was the cost of posting; and what was the cost of the hire of hoardings?

Mr. WARDLE: Of the large sized posters 10,000 copies were printed and posted. Of the medium sized poster 20,000 were printed and 12,000 posted. Of the small sized poster 100,000 were printed and 92,000 posted. Separate figures cannot be given for the cost of posting and hire of hoardings, but the combined cost was £625.

General CROFT: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the £600 is added to the £ 1,600 already stated for printing?

Mr. WARDLE: This is the combined cost.

Brigadier-General CROFT: 83.
asked the Lord Privy Seal what was the approximate increased cost of the poster entitled "The Prime Minister to Employers" owing to the reproduction of a picture of the Prime Minister thereon?

Mr. WARDLE: I have been asked to reply to this question. The increased cost was approximately £30.

NATIONAL RELIEF FUND.

Mr. J. DAVISON: 84.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can now state the result of his inquiry into the present position of the National Relief Fund and the desirability of drawing up, with the assistance of the representatives of the local Committees, some scheme for disbursing the balance of the fund in such a way as to render the greatest possible assistance to persons in distress during the coming winter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have done my best to find out the facts in regard to this matter, and I greatly doubt whether any
possible change would add to the usefulness of this fund. I would remind the hon. Member also that the fund was started as a private fund, not under Government control, and I am informed that many contributors gave their assistance on that understanding. The Report of the administration of the fund is presented to Parliament every half-year, the last being Command Paper 356, of 30th June, 1919.

Mr. DAVISON: In view of the fact that the Government decided yesterday to abolish the unemployment dole, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that this is disbursed in the interests of those people who will meet with great distress during the coming winter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: This fund was formed for the express purpose of helping such distress, and I have no doubt whatever that it will be used for that purpose.

CURRENCY NOTES.

Mr. LAMBERT: 86.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the total number of sovereigns and half-sovereigns in circulation before the War; what is the number of £1 and 10s. currency notes in circulation now; and whether these currency notes can be printed at about five or six for a penny?

Mr. BALDWIN: The estimated amount of gold coin held by banks (excluding gold coin held by the issue department of the Bank of England) on 30th June, 1914, was £123,000,000. The number of currency notes outstanding on the 12th instant was: £1 notes, 259,951,732; 10s. notes, 88,253,137. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. LAMBERT: Does the hon. Gentleman mean, by gold in the hands of banks, all the gold in the hands of the public as well?

ENEMY-OWNED SECURITIES.

Lieut. - Commander HILTON YOUNG: 87.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what policy is served by the continuance of war-time Regulations against dealing in enemy-owned securities on the London Stock Exchange; and whether, in the financial interests of this country, he can now arrange that such Regulations should now be withdrawn?

Mr. BALDWIN: I refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Lewisham.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DEPART MENT (P. O'BRIEN).

Sir F. HALL: 88.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the grounds on which it is proposed to dispense with the services of P. O'Brien, a pensioner messenger employed in the Customs and Excise Department, who has attained the age of sixty-five years; if this man, who has served twenty-two years as a messenger following on twenty-one years' Army service, is still capable of carrying out his duties; if, on being retired, he will receive no retiring allowance beyond his Army pension of 1s. 10½d. a day; and if, having regard to the long and satisfactory record of service of O'Brien, further consideration can be given to the case, with a view to O'Brien's engagement being continued for a further period, or to his being given some augmentation of his Army pension?

Mr. BALDWIN: Pensioner messengers are conditioned to retire at the age of sixty-five at latest, but on account of the scarcity of suitable candidates during the War, O'Brien has been specially retained for more than two years past that age. There is now a large number of ex-sailors and ex-soldiers, who have served in the War, waiting for employment, and there is no justification for retaining O'Brien any longer, and thereby depriving them of a vacancy. There is no power to grant him a retiring allowance, but he will receive a gratuity. Whether he has any claim to an increase of his Army pension is one for the Army authorities to decide.

Sir F. HALL: May I ask if, for instance, the hon. Gentleman considers it is generous that after forty-three years' service under the Government this man, who is retired at sixty-five when he cannot obtain employment elsewhere, should get a miserable 1s. 10½d. a day?

Mr. J. JONES: Were we not told yesterday there was plenty of work for everybody?

NATIONAL ECONOMY.

Sir HENRY COWAN: 89.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether,
having regard to a statement made by him on 5th November to the effect that he would be glad to consider any suggestions from the House for effecting economies, he will indicate the method by which he would propose that such suggestions should be conveyed to him?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is not unusual for hon. Members to memorialise Ministers in favour of increased expenditure in particular cases. If the hon. Member can succeed in obtaining equally widely signed memorials in favour of curtailing expenditure by reducing or suspending particular services as suggested in his previous question, my right hon. Friend will be glad to give them his most friendly consideration.

Mr. BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of putting a suggestions box in the Lobby?

Mr. LAMBERT: 90.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the growing exasperation of those classes who are being crushed by war burdens and high cost of living, and at the extravagance illustrated at auction sales, motor shows, and the like; and whether he can devise taxation whereby some extravagant people can assist the taxpayer out of their superfluous wealth?

Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend has not been able to devise, nor, he thinks, have others been able to suggest, a, luxury tax which would be either effective for this purpose or fair in its application.

EXCESS PROFITS DUTY (SHIP OWNERS).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 91.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the owners of large fleets of ships sold them at enhanced prices subsequent to the declaration of war and prior to the Finance Act of 1917, and went out of business, and thereby ceased to be liable to payment of excess profits on the enhanced earnings of such ships; that the purchasers of such ships, in consequence of being debited with the enhanced prices thereof, showed little, if any, excess profits in their balance sheets; that these transactions, which were very common, were to the loss, injury, and damage of the revenue; and whether he is to take steps, and what steps, to recover for the State the excess profits which but for these transactions would have been paid?

Mr. BALDWIN: My right hon. Friend is aware that sales of ships have taken place in such circumstances that the profits accruing therefrom to the vendors are not subject to the charge to Excess Profits Duty He is, however, unable to agree with the hon. Member that there has been a resultant loss of revenue from the profits accruing to the purchasers of these ships. The provisions of Section 47 of the Finance Act, 1916, under which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are empowered to require the purchaser of a ship to adopt the vendor's pre-war standard for the purposes of Excess Profits Duty, was retrospective in effect and applied to all ships sold after 4th August, 1914. As regards the last part of the question, as the hon. Member is aware, a Select Committee of the House is about to be appointed to consider the practicability of the taxation of wealth accumulated during the War.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

CALUMNIATING BRITISH SOLDIERS.

MR. J. F GREEN (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether the attention of the Government has been called to a publication called "The Egyptian Circular," which has been widely circulated among Members of the House, containing gravely seditious matter, and stated to be edited by Kyria-kos Mikhail, and bearing the imprint of the National Labour Press, Limited.; and whether the Government intend to take steps to prevent the further circulation of this seditious publication?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. I have seen the publication referred to. It contains allegations as to atrocities by British soldiers in Egypt which are certainly untrue, but are so framed as to make a prosecution difficult if not impossible. No charges are made against any specified persons, so that proceedings for libel are not available; and it would be difficult to prosecute under Defence of the Realm Regulation No. 27 when the witnesses who could refute the statements are in Egypt or by this time scattered over the world. I am considering, however, what other action may be possible.

Captain LOSEBY: Is it not sufficient that this paper has received money from foreign sources obviously for the purpose of calumniating in a vile manner the soldiery of this country?

Lord H. CECIL: Is it not a seditious libel to use language bringing the Army into hatred?

Mr. SPOOR: Is it not correct that this publication consists of quotations from American newspapers, in hundreds of which these horrible allegations have been made; and may I ask whether, having regard to that fact and the real danger to our interests in America as a result of it, he will not consider the advisability of arresting the individual who has published this "Egyptian Circular," and giving him an open trial, so that the Government will have an opportunity of giving a specific denial to all the charges therein contained?

Mr. SHORTT: I have already given a denial, and, so far as the quotations in America are concerned; this document is not a quotation from America, but the quotations in America are from documents such as this. I am, of course, bound to be guided by my legal advisers as to whether a prosecution would lie or not, but I can assure the House the matter is not dropped, and we are taking all the steps we can.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the allegations in this circular are stated to be summaries taken from the American papers? The summaries and the headlines of the paper are given. Will the right hon. Gentleman not be prepared to institute an inquiry, seeing that these charges or allegations have been made on affidavit, and are backed up by a previous Minister of Education and Justice in the Egyptian Legislative Assembly, so that the fairness of British rule in Egypt may be vindicated?

Mr. SHORTT: I have already said that the matter is under consideration.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: May I ask whether identical copies of this document did not reach this country from America, where it was originally produced, and whether the copy of the circular to Members is not a reprint of Anti-British propaganda in the United States, worked up by anti-British agents throughout the United States, merely using the Egyptians as one of their tools to try to smash the
League of Nations and to do everything against this country and President Wilson?

Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid I cannot answer that question without notice.

Mr. G. TERRELL: May I ask whether the Independent Labour Party are not responsible for the issue of this document?

Mr. J. JONES: And responsible for the bad weather too!

ROYAL AIR FOIICE.

Lord HUGH CECIL (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the anxiety expressed by sonic Members of this House in regard to the relation between the War Office and the Air Office now existing, and the consequent effects upon the Royal Air Force; whether the Government will make a full statement of their policy in regard to the Air Ministry and the Royal Air Force; and whether they will fix a day for a full discussion of that policy?

The PRIME MINISTER: My attention has been called to a Resolution to that effect carried at a meeting of Members of this House. There has been no change whatever in the policy of the Government in regard to the Air Force, and I see no need for any discussion at present. If, however, there should be any general desire for such a discussion, my right hon. Friend will, I am sure, try to arrange it, but the pressure of business is so great that it will be difficult to find time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House say what business will be taken next week, and also will he announce the form in which the discussion to-morrow on the housing question will be taken?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The business proposed for next week is—
On Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, Report of the Electricity (Supply) Bill.
On Thursday and Friday, the Government of India Bill, in Committee.
We had contemplated taking the discussion on Premium Bonds on Wednesday, but I am informed that a section of the
House would find that day very inconvenient. It is therefore proposed to take it on Monday of the following week.
As regards the discussion to-morrow the form most suitable will be, I think, to move the Adjournment, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will begin the discussion by stating the position in which the problem is now, and how the Government hope to deal with it.

Mr. G. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say on what day of the week after next the Anti-Dumping Bill will be taken?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; it is impossible as yet to give the exact date.

Sir E. CARSON: Will the Irish Education Bill be introduced on Monday?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The introduction, as my right hon. Friend knows, is a formal stage.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. REMNANT: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to proceed with the Electricity Bill to-day?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We take it to-day and next week.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman state, for the convenience of the House, in what form ho proposes to take the opinion of the House with regard to Premium Bonds?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have considered that. There is a proposal on the Paper, first in the name, of my hon. Friend and another in the name of my hon. Friend behind me (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke). According to custom, the natural thing would be to take the first Resolution, which I think really raises the issue, and perhaps it would be convenient for him to move it, and the hon. Member who has the other Resolution down to second it.

Lord R. CECIL: To-morrow the Minister of Health will make a statement as to the Government policy on housing. I do not complain, but do I understand there will be no opportunity for the House to express any opinion whether it approves of that policy or not? The Motion will be merely a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think any other course will be possible, but if the
House is dissatisfied, they can vote against the Motion for the Adjournment, which will be a condemnation of the Government.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: Will there be an opportunity to-morrow for Scottish Members to raise those aspects of the housing question which affect Scotland, and will the Minister responsible for health, in Scotland be there to take part?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure he will be there, but whether or not Scottish Members can take part must depend on the Members who are called. My experience of my own nationality is that they always get their share.

Mr. BILLING: Having regard to the importance of the Debate to-morrow, if a conclusion is not reached by five o'clock, will there be any means of continuing the Debate?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course, it would be possible to suspend the Five o'Clock Rule, and the Government would have no objection, but I doubt whether the House would ask for it. (HON. MEMBBKS: "Why not?"]

Mr. BILLING: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opinion of the House on the point?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Notice has to be given to-day. The Government have no objection, and we will consider it.

STANDING ORDERS.

Ordered, That the Standing Orders, as, amended, be printed. [No. 213.]

BILL PRESENTED.

IRISH RAILWAYS (CONFIRMATION OF AGREEMENT) BILL,—"to confirm certain terms in an agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Irish railway companies," presented by Sir ERIC GEDDES; supported by Mr. Macpherson; to he road a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 213.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—
Industrial Courts Bill,
Water Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.— [19TH NOVEMBER].

CIVIL SERVICES SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1919–20.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR (CIVIL DEMOBILISA TION AND RESETTLEMENT DEPARTMENT).— (Unclassified Services.)

Resolution reported;
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,500,000 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Civil Demobilisation and Resettlement of the Ministry of Labour, including Out-of-Work Donation and the Contribution to the Unemployed Insurance Fund, and Repayments to Associations pursuant to Sections 85 and 106 of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and the National Insurance (Part II.) (Munition Workers) Act. 1916 and Grants for the Training of Demobilised Officers.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. CLYNES: I cannot allow the final stage of this Vote to pass without taking the opportunity of addressing a few observations to the Leader of the House on what may be regarded as the new aspects of the question, especially in view of his reply to a question this afternoon with regard to the uses to which the money in the National Relief Fund can be put. I return to the subject, and would ask the sympathetic attention of hon. Members, because the decision of last night, if it may not mean life and death to some very poor people, really will mean a condition of very serious privation, which I am sure Members of the House would desire to prevent. I do not desire to reopen the whole theme which was discussed at length last night. I mean no offence to hon. Members when I say that we think a larger number of Members would have gone into the Lobby in our support had it not been for the fact that many of them were unable to attend the earlier stages of the Debate, and therefore had only the opportunity of listening to one or two of the final speeches which were made in the course of the discussion Hon. Members who sat throughout yesterday's Debate will agree that the trend of the speeches was all in one direction, and indicated a very strong
desire that this unemployment benefit should not be immediately discontinued. In view of the decision, we recognise that some other step must be taken. It is clear that it is possible for such a step to be taken from the reply of the Leader of the House to the question to which I have referred. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the money in the National Relief Fund could be used to relieve cases of distress, as clearly the money was subscribed for that purpose. I believe the Fund now amounts to a very considerable sum, indeed, something in excess of £2,000,000. It is no exaggeration to say that the greater number of the civilian unemployed who are no longer able to receive the State money which they have received will be put in a state of very real distress by not having any longer the opportunity to receive that pay. It is with very great reluctance that we make an appeal of this kind or suggest that distress due to unemployment since the close of the War should be relieved from this source. We should much prefer that the support of the unemployed should be provided under conditions of a greater sense of dignity than may be possible if they receive their support from the source of the National Relief Fund. But real necessity knows no law, and, for my part, I say that if it be that we cannot get some money as it was receivable until now, as a State right, and if these poor people are driven on the rocks of charity, we must do our best to rescue them, by whatever means we can, from the immediate threat of starvation.
1 would therefore ask the Leader of the House whether he can consider some means whereby State pay can be continued, even if on a reduced scale, to the civilian employés who, by virtue of last night's Vote, were deemed to have their pay terminated? I believe that hon. Members who voted against us last night will be prepared, in the circumstances, to consider some continuation of pay from State fund sources, even on a reduced scale. Failing that, I ask that some steps be taken whereby money may be obtained either from the National Relief Fund or from the considerable reserves which I gather have accumulated under the heading of Part II. of the National Insurance Act. I believe there has been a great accumulation of money in the funds under that head, because of the other payments which have been made from State sources during the course of this year. May I
suggest another point to the right hon. Gentleman? The unanimous feeling of the House last night was that, however undeserving or less deserving than others the civilian unemployed may be, there could be no questioning of the right of ex-soldiers and ex-Service men and women to a continuance of State pay. On that point we were so unanimous that each of us competed with the other in offering thanksgiving and praise to the ex-Service men and women for fighting for their country in the manner they did. I put to the Minister of Labour the view that the sacrifices and the services of these men and women would be badly rewarded or paid for by reducing their pay. It is not seemly, at, the least, to sing the praises of these men and women and then to immediately decide in this House that their pay should be reduced. I would therefore plead, whatever may be done for the civilian workers, and anxious as we are to see justice done to them, that the pay of the demobilised soldier and sailor ought not to be reduced by virtue of the decision reached last night, as I am sure it was not the intention of any Member of this House, into whichever Lobby he went, to have the pay of the soldier reduced. Therefore, in view of the approaching winter, the point which, because of its overwhelming importance I do not fear again to repeat, is that, great as was the difficulty before the War confronting poor people who were unemployed, and therefore receiving no wages, great as was their dfficulty in scraping together the necessaries of life, it is three times greater now, in view of the high prices of food, which are said to be 130 per cent, higher than they were before the War. In face of the almost impossible task of keeping body and soul together, and in face of the very considerable minority which went into the Lobby last night in favour of the continuation of this pay, I put to the right hon Gentleman the urgent necessity of giving out some more hopeful message to these poor people than they will gather from the Press today. I ask him whether he cannot continue, in full, the pay of the ex-soldiers and sailors and, either from State funds or from relief funds or from the accumulated funds and reserves which have been obtained in connection with Part II. of the Insurance Act, give some hope of tiding over Christmas to those people whose faces will be glam when they read the information in the papers this morning. We on this side felt that we could
not allow this Report stage of the Supplementary Estimates to pass without submiting what we think is so humane a consideration that it cannot fall entirely upon deaf ears.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The House must welcome the attitude of my right hon. Friend, inasmuch as he accepts the decision of the Committee last night and does not propose to have the whole subject reopened again. As regards the question of distress, it is quite evident, not merely from the speeches but also from the attitude of the Government, that it is our desire to do anything which we think can be done without injury to the nation to make that distress as small as possible. I do not at all agree with my right hon. Friend that to receive money from the State for unemployment is a direct dole—to use the, word which really describes it—or is in. any way on a different level from receiving help from funds such as the National Relief Fund, which was subscribed by the people of this country for the express purpose at the time the subscriptions were raised of meeting the distress which was expected in consequence of the War. What I said last night was—and the whole attitude of the Government will have shown—that we do desire, as far as wo can, to limit the amount of distress which may become inevitable. The National Relief Fund, as I have already explained, is not under the control of the Government.

Mr. HOGGE: A certain amount of it is.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of that. At any rate, the great bulk of it is not under the control of the Government; but I am certain that it was to meet distress of this kind that the money was subscribed. I have no doubt whatever that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will himself see—I do not say we can put pressure, because I am sure it would not be necessary—as I have already seen the chairman of the executive of that Fund and discussed with him the distress which may arise. I do not suggest for a moment that the right use of that Fund would be to continue the special payments irrespective of what the needs may be. I Should think that the best use to make of this Fund or of any other fund which may be available will be to regard it as a question of distress, and to give help where the distress exists. As regards the National Insurance Fund, I am informed—

Mr. DAVISON: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman to ask him whether he is aware that only 636 cases have been dealt with under the conditions that he names through the National Relief Fund?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend must realise—I am sure he does—that those who directed the National Relief Fund were, of necessity, bound to take into consideration in the allocation of that Fund the fact that this money was being given by the State. A new condition has arisen; and I think we all look at it from an entirely different point of view. As regards the National Insurance Fund, I think my right hon. Friend realises that by Statute we have no power to deal with it in this way. That is my impression. I wish to say—and this is my lust word—I wish the House to realise, and I wish hon. Members on that bench opposite to realise, that we do look forward with as great sympathy as they do to the possibility of this distress; anything we can do to help, without setting up a permanent system which would be disastrous to this country, we shall gladly do.

Mr. HOGGE: I think my right hon. Friend will find, if he cares to inquire, that a certain amount of the Relief Fund to which he has referred was administered by the Local Government Board, particularly in the East Coast towns which suffered from bombardment and damage from aircraft. But I have not risen lo put that point. I want to remind my right hon. Friend that he has not dealt with one point in which we are all interested in this House—that is the payment of discharged men. I should like to be quite clear about it, and I should like the House to be quite clear about it, before we agree to the Report stage. The: discharged soldier who was not able to get employment was originally entitled to 29s. per week. Does the present proposal mean: supposing a man were demobilised yesterday and is in process of demobilisation, he will not he entitled during his first-twelve months to get twenty-six weeks at 29s. per week? Or does it mean that after he has got through that first six months during the first twelve months of his demobilisation he then goes on to a lower amount of 20s. per week? The House will agree that whatever we do on the Report stage of this Vote, we must, at any rate, see that every demobilised soldier, whatever the time he is demobilised, gets equal and the same treatment. I do not think my
right hon. Friend appreciated what was in the mind of my right hon. Friend near me. (Mr. Clynes). If the Labour Minister can make that quite clear before we agree to the Report stage, we shall be grateful.

The MINISTER Of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): I thought it was made quite clear yesterday as to what were the precise proposals of the Government in regard to the discharged soldier. As there is evidently some confusion, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity of making the matter clear, beyond all doubt or misapprehension. Every discharged soldier was, under the original scheme, entitled to twenty-six weeks' of unemployment donation in the year after the date of his demobilisation. That payment was at the rate of 26s. per week. Later, the Government added to this by giving the discharged man thirteen further weeks of unemployment donation in his year after the date of his demobilisation at a less rate, namely, 20s. per week. In each case with the supplementary allowances in respect of the children he might have. Accordingly, every demobilised man became entitled to thirty-nine weeks' unemployment donation in his first year of demobilisation, of twenty-six weeks at the higher rate, and a subsequent thirteen weeks at the lower rate. In the case of the disabled men a further seven weeks was added, making in all forty-six weeks of unemployment donation. These rights remain intact no matter when the man is demobilised. Supposing he is demobilised to-day, he has got these same rights for the following twelve months. The only case that is now specifically dealt with in the new proposals of the Government is that of the man who was demobilised a year ago, and who, therefore, has come to the end of all his rights, but who, further, has still the winter before him. True, he has had twelve months in which to find employment. I think everybody will acknowledge that some of those who are unemployed are so undoubtedly because of the state of labour in the country, but one recognises that all men are not the same in this matter. They are not all even very industrious. There are some in all bodies of people and in all ranks of society who are not so eager to find work as are others; and, accordingly, although we saw that the twelve months had passed in which the men have had the opportunity of finding employment, and undoubtedly there are some who through their own
fault have not got it, yet in the great bulk of cases, undoubtedly it is owing to adversity of circumstances. For these the winter looks rather a blank period. What we have, therefore, decided to do in their case is to give them during the winter a still further nine weeks' unemployment donation at the rate of £l per week, so as to give them the still further opportunity of finding employment. That is how the matter stands. I hope I have made it quite clear.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEw CLAUSE.—(Transfer of Powers of Board of Trade, to Minister of Transport.)

All the powers and duties of the Board of Trade under this Act or the Electric Lighting Acts or the Orders and Regulations made there-under or any local Act relating to the supply of electricity or any enactment relating to matters incidental to such supply shall, as from such date as His Majesty in Council may fix, be transferred to the Minister of Transport, and accordingly references to the Board of Trade in any such Acts, Orders, Regulations, or enactments shall be construed as references to the Minister of Transport.
Provided that the power of appointing Electricity Commissioners under this Act shall be exercised by the Ministry of Transport after consultation with the Board of Trade.—[Mr. Shortt.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
This is a Clause reinstating in the Bill certain proposals rejected by the Committee. There is no new policy involved in the setting down of this Clause; no change of policy on the part of the Government of any sort or description. Originally the question of electricity was proposed to be dealt with in the Bill which sets up the Ministry of Transport, and certain powers were given to the Ministry, when established, which included the power of dealing with all questions of electrical power and electricity generally. This was in Committee withdrawn from the Bill setting up the Ministry of Transport. I made it perfectly clear then that it was not withdrawn because of any change of policy on the part of the Government; it was withdrawn solely and simply
that the matter might be dealt with in an Electricity Bill. A provision was inserted in the Ways and Communications Bill by which was transferred to the Ministry of Transport all the powers and duties of the Board of Trade.
I must go into this I am afraid in some little detail; because, of course, I am asking the House on the Report stage to reverse the decision of the Committee upstairs. I fully realise that that can only be done where the Government appreciate that it is of the greatest importance to the Bill as a whole that this Clause should be passed. We have considered this question very carefully. We have investigated it in every direction to see if there was any means by which we could meet the wishes of the Committee upstairs, and at the same time not do that which, in the opinion of the Government, would greatly impair the efficiency of the Bill. But we have not been able to find any method of what I may call compromise as between the view of the Committee and the view of the Government. Therefore it is that I am moving this new Clause. May I just briefly remind the Committee of what is the object both of this Bill and of the Bill which establishes the Ministry of Transport? There are two things which are absolutely essential to industry and social development in this country. These are transport and power. You cannot develop industry of any kind unless you have transport. You cannot develop agriculture or any form of industry unless the products of that industry can be conveyed to their markets. Equally you cannot, without transport, make all those changes and improvements in the housing system of our people which we all very greatly desire.
Indeed, there is hardly any form in which one seeks to better the conditions of the country that does not require as an essential transport above all. Equally, transport without power is of no value. You must develop power and you must develop your power so as to supply it, not only as cheaply and as rapidly, but as efficiently as you possibly can. It is no good, however, having cheap power if it may fail you at any moment. It is no good having a secure and certain power if it is too expensive to make it a commercial proposition. You have, therefore, two things required. You must have certainty of supply and you must have cheapness of supply. These are the two great essentials for progress in this country—transport and electricity!
This House has already arranged by creating a Ministry of Transport that all forms of transport are to be co-ordinated. That principle has been accepted by this House, and is now an established fact. It is an established fact for the time being; and although I do not prophesy, I would venture to say that that is a decision of the House which it will never reverse. What is the fact in regard to electricity? Electricity is probably, in the future at any rate, going to be one of the main sources of power. Every time this subject has arisen, I have said that I would not for a moment suggest that private enterprise, which has been the pioneer of electricity in this country, has failed in its duty. Those concerned have, under difficult circumstances, done very great and very good work. No one will, I suppose, suggest that they have attained to anything like complete success? There is a great deal to be done. What is to be done essentially requires driving power. This Bill provides that, whatever authority deals with the electricity, they shall have to see to it that enterprise is forthcoming, and energy, and initiative. For example, there is power given to the Electricity Commissioners to conduct experiments and investigations into the use of electrical power and fuel. There will be an advisory committee set up, part of whose duty will be to make to the authorities suggestions as to and directions and methods by which improvements may be attained. During the transport period there is power for the central authority to construct generating stations, and generally to provide that no offer shall have to wait an overdue time for the chance of success. Equally there are other provisions which require supervision, but which require something more, and that is driving power behind the central authority. The question then arises—which of our existing Departments is the best from that point of view? I do not think anyone in the House will now suggest the setting up of a new Ministry, and whether that will come in the future is another matter. No one will suggest the advisability or propriety of setting up a new ad hoe Ministry, and therefore we have to consider which of the existing Departments is the best and most suitable to put at the head of this great and important subject of electricity.
The services are out of the question. Departments like the Home Office are
equally out of the question., and I think if you come to investigate you will find that it lies between two Departments, the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Transport. Now which of those two Departments is best fitted to assist a new body, to encourage new enterprises, and the forcing of its driving power, initiative, and energy? The Board of Trade has done excellent work in the past, but it is not work of driving power or of initiative. The Board of Trade has a very good staff, but it is chosen and trained for the purpose of supervision, of enforcing regulations and purposes which have the effect rather of curbing instead of encouraging enterprise and initiative. That is the sort of staff they possess—and rightly possess. It is an adequate and able staff, but it is not trained to anything except supervision and regulation. They have no staff of engineers or electricians that could undertake the work of erecting new generating stations as provided for in this Bill in an area where there was no district board or local body. They have no such staff, and if this duty remained with the Board of Trade it would mean that they would have to do the equivalent of setting up a new Ministry, because it would mean the reorganisation of the whole staff.
The Ministry of Transport already has a suitable staff. They have highly skilled engineers and electricians, and they must have those men for the work they have to do. The very raison d'être of their existence is that they are not to supervise, regulate, and curb, and their whole object is to force, drive, encourage, and ensure all that is necessary to go forward and progress. [An HON. MEMBER: "Regardless of expense!"] Of course not regardless of expense. I hope I am asking for nothing unreasonable. Their main duty is driving force and energy, and neither of those attributes appertains to the staff of the Board of Trade. Therefore the Government are convinced that it would be detrimental almost to the point of destruction to put this Bill under any Department except the one which is properly fitted to carry out its provisions.

Sir P. MAGNUS: Has the Minister of Transport got a staff of engineers?

Mr. SHORTT: Yes, he has a great many, but I do not say that his staff is complete. He is bound to have engineers and electricians, because the one great method by which we can improve transport is through electrifying the lines.
Therefore he must have them. Whether he has got all he requires I do not know, but he has a very considerable staff indeed. He has the nucleus of the staff, and he is completing it every day. I think everybody admits that if you want to do any good in a matter of this kind you must co-ordinate the transport system of this country. It was admitted by the House on the Second Reading of this Bill that you must, if you are to have a really efficient service of electricity, have unity and co-ordination. That is admitted with transport and power on every hand. There is another thing which is just as important, and it is that your transport without power is useless, just, as power without transport is useless, and therefore it is just as important you should have co-ordination in your transport as it is that you should have co-ordination between power and transport. You must have co-ordination in each, and it is almost more important that you should have co-ordination between the two.
Transport, is co-ordinated under that Department, and the only way you can have co-ordination between power and transport is by putting them under the same Department. If you have two Departments working as sympathetically as possible, it is impossible for them to work as one would work. Even if you have two Departments working together there must be unavoidable friction, and you cannot have that smoothness and unity which is essential to complete success that you can get when you have only one controlling Department. On these grounds, the Government have come to that conclusion with regret, because they would, if they could have done it, tried loyally to have accepted the decision of the Committee upstairs, I have tried briefly to explain why it is that the Government cannot accept that decision and are bound to ask the House to reverse it. Therefore I ask the House to accept this proposal.

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: This is the second occasion upon which the Home Secretary has had to auk the House to reverse a decision come to in Committee, and I wish to express to him personally my sympathy for the position in which he finds himself. He has told us in somewhat solemn terms that the decision come to by the Committee is, in the opinion of the Government, calculated to wreck the usefulness of this Bill, and I suppose we may take it from that that if
the decision of the Committee is confirmed by this House the Government will not proceed with the Bill. I cannot help making the comment that the opinion of the Cabinet seems to be rather sudden. For the benefit of those hon. Members who were not members of the Committee I would like to say that when this Clause was discussed in Committee the Home Secretary was not able to be in his place. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport was not in his place either, and the defence of the Clause was left to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who was supposed to maintain, in face of an unsympathetic Committee, that his Department was incompetent to carry out the functions entrusted to it by the Bill. Under these circumstances it is, perhaps, hardly surprising that the Committee did not attach the same importance to the rejection of this Clause which apparently the Government are now disposed to do.
Speaking for myself, it appeared to me all through that the question as to whether the Functions which in the Bill were ascribed to the Board of Trade should be handed over to the Ministry of Transport was one on which we had to be convinced by very powerful arguments. I listened carefully to what the Home Secretary said on the subject when he was moving the Second Heading of the Transport Bill. I also listened to what he said on the Second Reading of the Electricity Bill, but I could not listen to what he had to say on the subject in Committee because he was not there. I have listened to his arguments this afternoon in support of the change, and I confess that I am still unconvinced of the desirability of this change. He has told us a good many things about the importance of developing the power system of this country as well as the transport system. He has told us a good deal about the virtues of co-ordination of the different systems of electricity and co-ordination between transport and power, but he has not told us why it is necessary to secure that co-ordination that the Electricity Commissioners should act under the direction of the Ministry of Transport rather than under the President of the Board of Trade.
I have been unable to see that any sufficient argument has been brought forward to convince me of the necessity of the change, whilst I do see some distinct disadvantages which I should like to put before the House. If this Clause is
passed I venture to say that it will be exceedingly unpopular in the country. I do not put that forward on political grounds, but when you are introducing a big Bill of this kind it should be introduced with general good will, and a Bill that begins in an atmosphere of suspicion has not got a good start-off. Why do I suggest that it will be unpopular? Because the Ministry of Transport is itself going to be a great consumer of current. That is part of the Home Secretary's argument, and it will therefore be looked upon in the light of a competitor with other users of current. If there is any difference as to where current should be generated or as to the nature of the current to be generated, or if there is any difference of opinion, let us say, between the local authorities and industry generally or transport, then it is not considered that the Ministry of Transport will be in an impartial position to judge the case. Various functions are assigned by this Bill. Some of these functions are of a judicial character. For instance, Clause 7, which deals with the price to be paid for undertakings of private companies to be vested in the district electricity boards, says that if it is shown to this satisfaction of the Board of Trade that the expenditure calculated in a certain way would work hardship, then it is to go before an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade. That is a judicial function. The Board of Trade have to be satisfied that an injustice is going to be created, and then they have to appoint an arbitrator. That is not a position in which you ought to put the Ministry of Transport when they themselves are interested parties in the supply of electricity. Again, the Board of Trade may, by Order, authorise the Electricity Commissioners to abstract water from rivers, streams, canals, inland navigation, and other sources. That is a position which should be entrusted to an entirely impartial Ministry. I do not for a moment want to suggest that the Ministry of Transport would not be impartial in this matter, but I feel that there would be some sort of suspicion created which it is very desirable to avoid and which is of disadvantage if you are considering the handing over of these duties to the Ministry of Transport.
I will also call attention to the Schedule. It lays down the procedure to be adopted by the Board of Trade before confirming any special Order under the
Bill. They have to hear evidence, consider objections, amend the Order if they think fit, and so forth. These qualities of energy, driving power, and initiative, which the Home Secretary has recommended to us as being the qualities of the Ministry of Transport, are not exactly the qualities that we look for in a person who has to administer justice in the way provided in the Schedule. It seems to me that the Government, in their anxiety to put the work of Clause 19 of the Bill, namely, the expenditure of the £20,000,000 and the exercising of the powers of the district boards before they are set up. under the Ministry of Transport have lumped in other functions for which the Ministry of Transport is not at all suitable and have not really given sufficient attention to the possibility of separating these various functions and putting some of them under one Department and some under another. I certainly should be the very last to desire to see all the time that the members of the Committee—I among them—have given to this measure thrown away by the dropping of the Bill. I do not want to see the Bill dropped at all, but I am not here to vote as I am told—I am here to vote according to my convictions—and I do think that I am entitled to ask the Government to give me convincing reasons for changing my opinion before I do so, and before I give a vote to the Clause in its present form. I cannot vote for the Clause in its present form, and I do ask my right hon. Friend to see whether it is not possible, after all, to go into this matter a little bit further and to separate what I have called the judicial functions of the Department of State under which the direction of the Electricity Commissioners are to act from those functions that they will have to exercise under Clause 19.

Major GREAME: As a general rule the House would be unwilling to override the considered decision of a Committee on a question of detail, though I am bound to say, looking at the length of the Order Paper, that is a view which does not appear to be shared by a large number of Members. The Amendment which the Home Secretary has moved involves very broad questions of principle and no mere question of detail, and I think the House will be glad of an opportunity of reviewing the decision of the Committee, particularly as the arguments in favour of the Clause were singularly wanting in Committee. I have read the Report of the pro-
ceedings, and I do not think that the real merits or demerits of this Clause were in the least discussed. I would like to show what are the principles which are involved. I sincerely hope that the House is going to give its decision on this Clause on questions of principle, and not on questions of personality. I am glad that hon. Members cheer that statement, and I hope that it will be carried out. The argument ad hominem is always dangerous, is generally fallacious, and is very often biassed. But whether that be true or not it is always a bad thing in this House, because we do not legislate for the life of a particular Minister, or the political life of a Government, but for all time.
The first principle involved is one which was enunciated by the Home Secretary. You cannot set up a new Ministry to deal with this matter. You have to decide to which Ministry you can best assign these functions. All Ministers are extraordinarily busy and they are all overworked, but if one were asked to select any particular Department at present more overworked and with more obligations culminating upon it in the critical trade period during which we are passing than any other one would, I think, say it was the Board of Trade. The House, therefore, would do well to pause before it added to the obligations of the Board of Trade, unless it were satisfied that there was no other Ministry that could do the work equally well. As a matter of fact, the Ministry of Transport is a much more natural Ministry for the purpose than the Board of Trade. Inevitably, the Ministry of Transport is going to be day in and day out concerned with electricity. I am aware that may be a two-edged argument, and hon. Members may say that because the Ministry is so interested in electricity it cannot be expected to exercise these judicial functions impartially. All these things were said originally about the Ministry of Transport. We were told that the roads would go to perdition if we placed them under the Ministry of Transport. As a matter of fact, the first thing that the Minister of Transport did was to appoint an officer in charge of them, who had won the confidence of every single officer and man who had served in France. If that argument is used on the one side, I am perfectly entitled to argue that I would have the interests of electricity in the hands of the Minister directly interested in it.
There is a second point of even more importance. This Bill, as it comes to us from the Committee upstairs, divides the responsibility in respect of electricity between the Board of Trade and the Ministry of Transport. There is not now presented to us a simple alternative as to whether we will assign these functions wholly to one Ministry or to the other. The Bill comes to us with divided responsibility. There has already been inserted in the Bill—and inserted, I think, by the general consent of the Committee—provisions which give to the railways and the Ministry of Transport what is practically a dual jurisdiction. If there is one principle of administration which is radically unsound, it is that of divided responsibility between two Departments. Any Member who has had any experience of Government administration knows that perfectly well, and no one knows it better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lady wood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) in his administrative experience in Government Departments. Every member of the Select Committee on National Expenditure time and time again has drawn attention to the inconvenience and delay and excessive expenditure which are caused by divided responsibility for one subject between two Departments. As a matter of fact, every member of the public who corresponds with the Departments, as well as every ordinary Member of this House, knows it. Nothing irritates Members of this House more than to address a question to one particular Minister and then to be told that as regards the first part he is able to give an answer, but as regards the second part the hon. Member must address himself to the Minister in charge of another Department. An ordinary business man does not know to which of two Departments to write, and he cannot write to a single Department and get a single decision. This is the thing which, in administration at the present time is irritating the community. It is really the first elementary principle of administration to make one Department the single executive authority for one subject.
5.0 p.m.
There is a third consideration which weighs with me. Not only is this provision contrary to all sound canons of administration, but it really cuts at the root purpose of the Bill. Under the scheme of the Bill the Board of Trade are responsible for the district boards. Under the Clause which has been added to the Bill the railways may say that they desire to have a supply of electricity of a kind, of an amount
and of a frequency which they require. It is well known that there will be divergencies of opinion as to which frequency is best. The railways may well say, "We want a frequency of 25," and, on the other hand, commercial men may say, "We want a frequency of 50." The worst solution of a difficulty of that kind is to say to two Departments, "Go your own way and set up two power stations, instead of one." That goes absolutely to the whole root of the subject, and that is what is going to be done if you leave this matter under this dual control. If you carry it you cannot get economy in construction, or in coal, or in cables, or in production. It is the surest way to get an extravagant solution of the whole problem. We have been told that the Minister of Transport will do things in a most extravagant manner. If this House, wishes to keep real control over the Minister of Transport, if it wishes to see the expenditure under this Bill economically carried out, it will insist on making one Minister responsible for the whole administration, a Minister whom it can call to account if it cosiders the expenditure excessive. If the Minister of Transport is made responsible for the whole field of electrical enterprise and not merely for a part, then he may be expected to take broad views, but without a single Minister the wider aspects will not be properly attended to. If these considerations had been present to the mind of the Committee I believe it would have come to a different decision, and I hope the House will not endorse a proposal which not only cuts at the root principle of the Bill, but which also transgresses the first principle of quick, economical and efficient administration.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: As a member of the Standing Committee which considered this Bill, I think it is deplorable that a decision come to almost unanimously should be upset at such short notice by the Government. The last speaker suggested that the Committee had taken out of the Bill the generating stations belonging to the railway companies, and left them to the Ministry of Transport. But the Bill, as submitted to the Committee excluded the railway generating stations, and many of the Committee would have been only too glad if the whole of the generating stations, whether railway or other, could have been in the hands of the Electricity Commis-
sioners. It is somewhat ingenious to suggest that, because the railway generating stations were excluded from the Bill, we should now take the whole of the electric service from it. I submit that that argument is entirely fallacious and should not carry weight with this House. I submit further that it is a sound principle that buyer and seller should not be one and the same body. That is a part of the Bill which will make it very difficult to get ready co-operation throughout the country from the various undertakings, whether private companies or municipal undertakings. In order to secure their hearty co-operation in the carrying out of this scheme it is necessary they should feel that the Electricity Commissioners will be in an entirely independent position.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went, and, having returned,

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Superannuation (Prison Officers) Act, 1919.
2. Constabulary and Police (Ireland) Act, 1919.
3. Industrial Courts Act 1919.
4. Granton Harbour Order Confirmation Act, 1919.
5. Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1919.
6. Fraserburgh Harbour (New Works) Order Confirmation Act, 1919.
7. Arbroath Harbour Order Confirmation Act, 1919.
8. Wick Harbour Order Confirmation Act, 1919.
9. Water Order Confirmation Act, 1919.
10. Scottish Amicable Life Assurance Society's Order Confirmation Act, 1919.
11. Ammanford Gas Act, 1919.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Question again proposed "That the Clause be read a second time."

Mr. THOMSON (resuming): In order to secure the success of this measure in the country—and I am sure it is the unanimous
feeling of the House that this measure of co-ordination and development of electrical power should be a success—the administration and development of it should be in the hands of a Department in which the various local authorities and the undertakers and traders of the country have absolute confidence. It is only by securing the hearty co-operation of all sections in this difficult transition period and period of development that you will be able to make the most of this great measure, and I am very much afraid the object the Government have in view of getting a hustle on will be defeated by the Clause they are trying to substitute for the procedure on which the Committee was unanimous. It is not a question of political feeling. It is that you will have the electrical development of the country and the arrangement of the generating stations put in the hands of a Department which is itself an interested party. The Home Secretary said, "You have in the Ministry of Transport already railway electricians skilled in the development of electricity as required by railways." That is a very strong argument against putting the Electricity Commissioners under the Ministry of Transport, because the traders, undertakers and municipalities will feel that in the development of this big scheme the interests of railway electrical development will naturally predominate rather than the development of electricity in the interest of the whole community. We were told that in future 10 or 20 per cent, of the electrical power may be taken by the railway companies. But whether it be 20 per cent, or a much larger figure, it is essential that the community as a whole should feel that its electrical development will take place on lines not in the interests of any one section of the community, but in the interests of the traders as a whole. The Home Secretary said we required driving force, and he suggested that that would be more likely to come from the Ministry of Transport than from the Board of Trade. The driving force in either case will depend upon the Commissioners themselves. If you get the right type of Commissioners they will be the driving force to see that this is carried through in the right way. It was in the mind of the Committee that the Commissioners, not merely judicially, but as administrators, would be the power behind the Bill to make it a success, and the question whether it should be under
the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Transport was the question of who should, be the mouthpiece in this House rather than that they should have any active part. It is desirable that we should have Commissioners who are independent of transport, who will view the interests of the country as a whole in its electrical development, and if you get the right Commissioners you will have the right driving force to see that this is carried out in the interests of the country as a whole. The Committee, which considered the-matter very carefully, were, up to yesterday, absolutely in favour of following the advice of the experts rather than of the Cabinet, which cannot have considered the question as carefully as the Committee has.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I enter on the Debate with some diffidence, because I was a member of the Transport Committee and also of the Electricity Bill Committee, and in both of them I put down an Amendment opposing the transfer of electricity to the new Ministry. At first I was of the opinion that the new Ministry was going to be overloaded, and that it would have far too much to do and would be unable to do it properly, and I thought, with many other members of the Committee, that if the new Minister would confine his attention more exclusively to railways and try to deliver them from their present tangle and get them licked into proper shape, he had enough work to do without taking in hand harbours, docks, piers, canals, roads, tramways, and electricity. But during the Committee stage of the Transport Bill the provisions were modified greatly, and I have come to the conclusion that if the new Ministry of Transport is not to be crippled and hampered it really must have control of electricity. There is no doubt whatever that if the railways of the country are to be put into a proper condition there must be a great development in the electrification of railways, and that a great future is in, store for electricity for purposes of transport. It may be urged that that can be quite well done by the Board of Trade, but I think the evidence in favour of the new Ministry organising and initiating the necessary work in connection with the development of electricity by improving the means of transport is quite conclusive. The Board of Trade is simply a supervising authority. It makes regulations and sees that they are carried out, and what it lays down is observed by the various
authorities over which it has supervision. But it has no initiative, and we are looking forward to the new Transport Ministry initiating great departures in the way of improving the transport of the country, and we hope there will really be found that driving power behind it which we cannot look for from the Board of Trade. Therefore, I think we should agree to this Clause. I know it is not a popular thing, having set up new Rules of Procedure whereby Bills are sent upstairs, that after a Committee has sat for eighteen or nineteen days, thrashing out the details of the Bill, the Cabinet should reverse decisions arrived at almost unanimously. Only twenty voted in favour of the deletion of the Clause.

An HON. MEMBER: How many are in the House out of 707?

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I admit that that is one of the defects of the Parliamentary system, that we are here discussing this important Clause, and when a decision comes to be taken it will not be the Members who are present who will turn the scale but the Members who will flock in without really having any intelligent knowledge on the subject. Under our present system of Committee work it would never do to lay down a hard and fast rule that because a Committee came to a certain decision that should never be reversed by the House under any circumstances. But the decision of the Committee should not be reversed unless for very good reasons. Under the circumstances in which we are placed there are good reasons for the reversal of the decision of the Committee. I find myself in the position of having changed my mind. I did so from the most disinterested motives. I had the feeling that now that we have set up a Transport Minister and imposed upon him the duty of organising the whole of the transport services of the country we should not be justified in hampering him, but we are bound to give him a fair chance. We should not do anything which will cripple the energies of his Department, and I think a good case has been made out by the Home Secretary for giving him the powers he seeks in this Clause. The choice before us is quite simple. It is whether the Board of Trade or the new Ministry should supervise matters. I think the weight of evidence is in favour of giving to the new Transport Ministry the power that is sought under this Clause, and by trans-
ferring the control of electrical energy to the new Transport Ministry we shall do something, without hampering it and without unduly crippling it, to enable it to set afoot great measures for the proper organisation of transport and for the great development of electricity and electrical power, and because I have come to that conclusion I favour the Clause and shall certainly vote for it.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir A. Geddes): I lave not risen for the purpose of making a speech on the subject, but merely of clearing up some misunderstanding. It has been suggested that the Board of Trade is opposed to the powers granted under this Bill being administered by the Ministry of Transport. That is not the case. The Board of Trade many months before I had anything to do with it formally agreed that, these powers would be better administered by the Ministry of Transport. I examined the matter fully myself when I went to the Board of Trade—I had looked at it before when at the Ministry of Reconstruction—and came to the conclusion that these, powers would be better under some other Department than the Board of Trade. It is not the case that the Board of Trade ever suggested that these powers should be under the Board of Trade.
When statements are made to the contrary I feel sure they must be made under a complete misunderstanding. The reasons which made me believe that these powers should be administered not by the Board of Trade but by the Ministry of Transport are shortly these: In connection with the development of electricity obviously a very large number of engineering problems arise, and in these days it is clearly necessary that duplication of staff should be avoided. If the Board of Trade is to be equipped with a new technical Department, there will have to be duplication, with all that that means in waste of effort and public money.

Colonel Sir J. REMNANT: Have not the Board of Trade a technical staff already?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, but not of the sort that will be required in connection with the administration of these powers.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: Has not this work been done on the advice of officers of the Board of Trade, and not of the Transport Ministry?

Sir A. GEDDES: There was no Ministry of Transport when this work was started.
The officials who were specially required had to be got somewhere and attached to some office, and the natural office to attach them to was the Board of Trade. My predecessor in office and his senior Civil servant, Sir Llewellyn Smith, agreed, I think in the autumn of last year, that the arrangement which is now contemplated should be carried out. There are other very material points which make it advisable that these powers should be administered by the Ministry of Transport. If there be one thing this country needs at the present moment it is to get industries spread. We have them congested at the present time in a few very populous areas. I here are any number of industries which could with great advantage and great economy be carried out to less densely populated parts of the country. The concentration of industries in populous areas is quite obviously due to the easy access to the coalfields. With electricity we have a means of distributing the power all over the country, and, we hope, of limiting the crowding in great industrial areas. If there is to be a Department which is to look after that spreading of power over the country, it will assuredly be most economically done by the Department which wishes to establish for its own purposes these rivers of power along the railways. The only alternative is the duplication of staff and expense. If you can distribute power along the railways, and use it for the railways, and at the same time carry off branches from it which will supply local works, then you have one main transmission line along your railway. If two Departments are working, one to provide motive power for the railways, and the other to provide power for industries, then you will have a waste of capital and a duplication of the transmission line. In many cases if that is to be done separately it will pay neither to electrify the railway nor to carry the electric energy into a district where it can be used. For these absolutely practical and economic reasons I believe that it is better that the general administration of the powers under this Bill should be conferred upon the Department which is already interested in the railways. I am sure it will lead to economy in staff, and to efficiency. The Board of Trade have ample to do without having this extra great responsibility added to its already numerous duties. It is for these reasons that I believe it to be sound that this Clause which has been moved by the Home Secretary should be adopted. The
Board of Trade agreed to this many mouths before I went to the Board of Trade, and there has never been any official withdrawal from that agreement expressed or suggested.

Mr. FORTESCUE FLANNERY: My right hon. Friend has just disposed of the unfounded allegation that the Board of Trade are unwilling or have ever been unwilling to resign the control of electricity in this country. I should like to add my testimony, as one of the members of the Standing Committee which dealt with this Bill upstairs, to what my right hon. Friend has said, namely, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade did not in any single word allege or even hint that the Department which he represented was unwilling to resign the control of electricity. For confirmation of this I appeal to the yellow OFFICIAL REPORT, in which the words of the Parliamentary Secretary were reported verbatim. There you will find confirmation of what I say, and contradiction of what has been alleged earlier in the Debate, that the Parliamentary Secretary did not seem desirous of supporting the view that he was supposed to support.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: Is the hon. Member referring to what I said?

Sir F. FLANNERY: I think the hon. Member did say something of the kind.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not say anything of the kind.

Sir F. FLANNERY: If the hon. Member did not, then some other hon. Member did, and if he refers to the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow he will find that what I have said is accurate. The hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Chamberlain) certainly made a statement which is entirely without foundation. He said that this new Bill when it became an Act would only work satisfactorily if popular views were in its favour, and that this Clause would be unpopular and would, therefore, be a handicap against the Bill. As I entered the House I received authority, quite unasked for and quite unsolicited, from the representative of the Association of Electric Supply Companies, an association which represents more than 100 different supply companies throughout the country, to state on their behalf that they are in favour of this Clause, and that if it is passed and included in the Bill they will welcome it and support it.

Mr. BALFOUR: Was the hon. Member informed when they had held a meeting, since they passed a unanimous resolution to the contrary?

Sir F. FLANNERY: That statement was made by Mr. H. B. Renwick at a meeting yesterday, and another representative, with whom I have conferred within the last half hour, has confirmed it and supported it in exactly the same terms.

Mr. BALFOUR: Did they give you any particulars of any meeting that has been held authorising them to make that statement to you?

Sir F. FLANNERY: I received no particulars of any meeting, but they gave that statement on their own authority and I accepted it, and I ask the House to accept it, subject, of course, to anything which my hon. Friend (Mr. Balfour) may say in contradiction. Everything he does say will, I am sure, be accepted by the House. That statement was made to me; I accepted it, and I believe it to be correct. Several speakers have referred to the broad general principle that this House should not, as a rule, upset the decisions of its Committees upstairs. That is a well-recognised principle, but where there is good reason shown, it is the function of this House on Report stage to take the opportunity of reviewing the decisions of its Committees. My hon. Friend (Mr. Johnstone) has anticipated what I regard as the true answer to that allegation in connection with this Clause. There are, I believe, seventy-four members of Standing Committee B, and the number of members who were present on the occasion when this Clause, or a corresponding item in the Bill, was under discussion, were twenty-four—less than one-third of the total number.

Mr. MARRIOTT: There are over 700 Members of this House, and only a small number are here now.

Sir F. FLANNERY: I am speaking as to whether the decision of the Committee ought to be respected by this House, and when less than one-third of the total number of that Committee attended to vote, then I say that the authority of that Committee is very much discounted, and the arguments that the House should hesitate about upsetting its decision are weakened and substantially fall to the ground. The true issue before the House is that the House has to decide whether the Board
of Trade or the Ministry of Transport shall in future be the administrator of electricity. The head and front of the very lucid arguments of the hon. Member for Ladywood was that under this Clause the existing powers of the Board of Trade as regards electricity will be transferred to the Ministry of Transport; the Ministry of Transport will be the users of electricity, because they administer the railways, and if there be any hardships in administration in connection with industries they will be the judges in their own case, and there will be no one to appeal to for justice to be done. Is that really the fact? Look at the Clause. It provides for the transference, and at the end we have these words:
Provided that the power of appointing electricity Commissioners under this Act shall be exercised by the Ministry of Transport after consultation with the Board of Trade.
That would mean, I think, in practice that the Board of Trade must have a voice in the appointment of these Commissioners. So long as that is so it cannot be said that the Ministry of Transport are judges in their own Court, and that there will be no one to appeal to from any injustice which they may do. Still, referring to the issues so plainly laid down by my hon. Friend opposite, I would say that the Board of Trade, who, it is proposed by those Members who object to this Clause, shall continue the administration of certain matters in reference to electricity, is a Department of many interests and of so much work that I am sure my right hon. Friend (Sir A. Geddes) by reason of his natural modesty did not refer to it in the course of his speech. But in the "Times" of 12th November there is a paragraph, portion of which I would like to read—
President, Parliamentary Secretaries and staffs of the following Departments of the Board of Trade now installed in their new offices. Commercial relations and treaties, industries and manufactures, power, transport and economics, marine, secretariat of the Board of Trade Council Board of Trade Journal and establishment, Public Utility Department, Legal Department, and library, are still housed at Whitehall Gardens headquarters. The Statistical Department, control of trading accounts, capital issues committees and the War insurance accounts branch will remain at Whitehall. The Finance Department will remain at Whitehall, the Bankruptcy Department will remain at Horseguards Avenue.
This is the Department with all those sections distributed over half a dozen different places in London, overworked with far more things to do than other Departments would have.

Colonel Sir J. REMNANT: What about the Ministry of Transport?

Sir F. FLANNERY: The Ministry of Transport has not anything like the same number of sections. I have not referred to all the sections of the Board of Trade. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) knows the enormous duty in connection with marine passengers that the Board of Trade has to carry out. There is another section which is strong enough to be a Department in itself—the Department of Oversea Trade. What led to the resignation of the hon. Member for East Birmingham (Sir A. Steel-Maitland), as he himself explained, was that the Board of Trade wished that the Oversea Trade Department should remain part of the Board of Trade, and it is still part of the Board of Trade, though it is a section wide enough to occupy the entire work of a Minister and a staff under him. My recollection of many years of the Board of Trade is that the Fisheries Department was removed and made part of the Department of Agriculture a few years ago because the Board of Trade was overworked and could not deal properly with the Fisheries Department, and so it was sent to another Ministry. Are you going to make the mistake of increasing the work of that already overworked Department? My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the work of the Ministry of Transport. One of the positive reasons in favour of the Ministry of Transport dealing with electricity is not only the strong reason which the President of the Board of Trade has stated—the fact that you have on the railroads the physical facilities for carrying your main cables that will feed the current, so that you may have branches from them—but there is also the certainty, I believe, that in the very near future the electrification of railways will be enormously increased.
None of us who travel on any of the tubes in London can fail to appreciate the facilities that electric railway traction gives in the railway service—quickness of starting, punctuality, and a hundred other advantages of a technical kind with which I need not weary the House. Broadly speaking, you will have in the near future an enormous extension of the electrification of railways. If that is so, how can you, without enormous difficulty and inconvenience to the public and everyone concerned, separate it into two sections or Departments which will adminis-
ter the development of traction and the development of transport upon the railways? I hope that the House will not reject this Clause, but will confirm substantially what the Committee would have done, and would do now, I believe, if it could be reassembled in full force; and, so far from it being a contradiction of the Committee's work, as has been suggested to us, to examine this Clause, I believe the House will support what the Committee would have done had there been a full attendance and the matter had been fully explained to them. And by confirming the Clause the House will be consolidating the Department to which we all look with confidence for great and important improvements in the transport services of the country.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I have listened to several speeches during the last hour, impartially, with the view to discovering if any reason was advanced to show why we should transfer this Department from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Transport. I have heard many statements, but so far I have discovered in the speeches no reason why this transfer should be made. Before I give a few reasons as to why this proposal should be rejected I would like to voice what I feel is a grievance felt by a very large body of Members. On the Order Paper yesterday there was no sign of this Amendment. Last week when certain hon. Members suggested that we should be allowed more time before this Bill came into the House on Report it was suggested that there would be ample time. Yet we find that the Minister of Transport was unable to get his new Clause on the Paper until the day on which the Bill comes into the House on Report. I think that that is a substantial grievance. On a question of this magnitude we are entitled to have at least twenty-four hours to consider our position before we are called upon to speak on a matter like this.
The Home Secretary remarked that if we leave this to the Board of Trade it would be detrimental to the point of destruction. He pleaded that the Ministry of Transport already had some of the staff. Why have they some of the staff? Have they prejudged the action of Parliament? Did they determine whether Parliament so determines or not that they were to have in their hands the power to run the electric business of this country? Apparently so. The President of the Board of Trade said that months before he
became President of the Board of Trade it was determined that this electric supply should be under the Ministry of Transport. If that is so how does it appear that the Bill was not reprinted before it went into Committee so that we might, while working in Committee, realise the due bearing and importance of the Ministry of Transport in relation to each Clause as we went along? I felt, and I think I can speak for most hon. Members of the Committee, that in reading it Clause by Clause we were entitled to assume that we were thinking of the Board of Trade and speaking of the Board of Trade and that we had not to wait until we had arrived at Clause 44 to know whether it was to be the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Transport.
6.0 p.m.
There are substantial reasons why this should not be transferred to the Ministry of Transport. I may first call attention to what I believe to be the chief grounds which have been put forward as to why we should transfer to the Ministry of Transport. I think that the grounds upon which alone the insertion of this new Clause can be justified are if it is shown to this House and proved to demonstration that it is justified on technical and commercial considerations; and second, and even more important, that if it is justified to this House and to the country as a matter of broad public policy. If that fails, if it is not justified as a matter of broad public policy, then I think it is the duty of hon. Members to reject this new Clause. It has been generally stated that railways will require ultimately about 20 per cent, of the total electricity in the country. That has been advanced as the first reason for transfer from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Transport. Then it has been stated that as the Bill stands the railways are entitled, under Clause 9, to generate the electricity for themselves. A third reason advanced is that you require the lands on which the railways are built for the purpose of laying your transmission lines and for putting up your overhead wires. I will take up those points, and if they are justified to the full, I would be prepared to say that the Home Secretary had made out his case. First of all, I will accept as a basis for argument, though I do not admit it one way or the other, that approximately 20 per cent, of the electricity may be ultimately used by the railway. Is that alone any reason for control by
the Ministry of Transport, who are interested in the consumption of that 20 per cent, of the total supply? I think I can show good reasons to the contrary. The Minister of Transport will say, "What about the technical side of it? What about the periodicity, and the different things which appertain only to the railway?" Let us see what the facts are. Electricity is not supplied from the main generating station direct to the motors on the railway cars or railway locomotives for railway purposes; it is generated in the large generating stations, and is transmitted at high pressure to points along the railway, and there it is converted at special sub-stations and is transmitted from these sub-stations a few miles on either side of the sub-station, for the purpose of supplying the particular type of current required for driving the locomotives or coaches. I hesitate to detain the House by going into all the reasons which prove to demonstration that this is absolutely incontestable in practice. What are the actual facts to-day in connection with railways? This morning I came across this note:
The North-Eastern Railway have for some time had Under consideration, and have now provisionally sanctioned, a scheme for the electrification of their main line between York and Newcastle, eighty miles. The details have been worked out by Sir Vincent Raven, chief engineer, in consultation with Messrs. Merz and Mclellan of Newcastle, and Victoria Street, S.W., consulting engineers to the company. The scheme provides also for the electrification of the loop-line (thirty-one miles in length) from Northallerton to Ferry Hill, via Stockton. On Tyneside the third rail system is used and on the mineral line the overhead equipment has been adopted. The new proposal is a combination of the two, the general idea being that the former should be used on the turning lines (fully protected) and in every way suitable for high speed running, and the latter in the floods yards and at large stations. All trains will be hauled by locomotives. The passenger type has not yet been decided on, but the freight will be similar to those used on the Shildon and Newport line. They will have both shoes and bows for collecting current, which is to be of the same voltage as on the Shildon-Newport line.
The Wallsend-Newcastle line was electrified in 1904, and it, is operated at 600 volts direct current. The Shildon-Newport line was electrified in 1915, and is operated at 1,500 volts direct current. Both of these lines are supplied from large power stations in Newcastle district, which delivers alternating currents at forty cycles. But it is no matter to these lines whether one is operated at 500 or 1,500 volts, because they both must have sub-stations for the conversion of the
electricity before it can be used on the railway. The facts go to prove the contrary of the argument put forward by the Home Secretary, by the President of the Board of Trade, and also by the Minister of Transport when he was introducing his Bill for the establishment of a Ministry of Ways and Communications. I submit that the statements they put forward are entirely unsupported by any facts, at any rate as far as I have been able to find in my own experience. The type and voltage used on railways have no necessary relation at all to the type of plant installed in the generating station.
As to the other point, regarding the transmission of electricity along the route of the railway, the President of the Board of Trade pointed out how vitally necessary it was for the improvement of the industries of this country. He said, I think:
Unless we can transmit along the railways we cannot produce cheaply.
What are the facts? First of all, if you have overhead lines you cannot put them between the lines. There are questions to be considered as to the height of the wires, the distance from telegraph lines, the angle of inclination to the telegraph lines, and so forth, and the existing regulations in scarcely any instance permit high tension lines to be placed on railway land. Then as to cables, the railways in certain cases may be used for laying cables along the embankment. Under the Bill power is taken to do that. Are we to assume that if the President of the Board of Trade wished to do that, the Ministry of Transport would be obstreperous and would say, "We will put every difficulty in your way as to the laying of cables along the railway?" I certainly think not. What is the real truth as to the value of transmission lines being laid along the railways? There is a certain advantage. It is an advantage only to the extent, the accidental extent, that you may have in certain places a sufficient width or sufficient unoccupied ground not used by the railway now or likely to be required in future. But that is only operative in a small number of cases. Then, again, there is the question of the development of essential industries; for instance, boots and shoes, hosiery and so forth. Those industries are scattered about all over a district. You will have to run your transmission lines so as to follow the factories; the small factories of this kind will not shift to come up to the railways.
I will leave these commercial and technical considerations, as to which I hold no case has been made out by the Government, and I will turn to the point of public policy. So far as public policy ii concerned, I think that the only real argument of the Home Secretary that I can recollect is the argument that we require more driving power. That is very essential. But I think I remember that in 1911, when electioneering, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Leader of the House used an illustration, I think in Liverpool, referring to a motor vehicle rushing downhill without control. It certainly had enough driving power, but the results were anything but desirable. Driving power alone is no good; it is not going to save the country. As a matter of fact, I venture to suggest that one of the things of which there is a growing need is not so much driving power as governing gear. We want reorganisation and control of the driving power already in existence. If that, the need of driving power, is the only claim which can be made, the Government have failed to make out a good case for asking the House to change the decision arrived at by the Standing Committee. If the new Clause is adopted this control would go entirely to a new Department. I think that Department is already overburdened. I think it requires to devote the whole of its time and energies to weighing up the enormous problems it has to deal with. It certainly is an enormous problem to deal with all the transport services of the country. I think it is wrong as a matter of public policy for it to be under the control of a Department which has a direct interest, and a very great interest, in subordinating the industrial electricity supply of the whole country to the railway interests. That can be denied, I think, by no Member of this House. I believe it is a fact that we are drifting into what we may term a bad system of administration in this country. I think it was Burke who described some such system as a system of administration repugnant to the genius of the people. I think we are drifting into a system of administration which is repugnant to the genius of the people—a system which is bureaucratic and which is autocratic. I cannot help feeling that in this case the administration has borne down the Government. If that is so, this is the worst possible mistake we can make. It is stated that if we have a bad system of administration everything must be dis-
order for a time, and that state of disorder will continue until either the administration destroys the Constitution or the Constitution destroys the administration. I think on very broad grounds of public policy there has been no case made out for this Clause, and I think, if on no other ground than grounds of public policy, the House should refuse to insert this Clause in the Bill, and to give greater power to an autocratic Department which has demonstrated its power to rule the Government, rather than to be the servant of the Government of this country.

Mr. ROYCE: I am in the happy position of not requiring any reason for supporting this proposal of the Home Secretary, because I have always been in favour of placing this Electricity Bill under the authority of the Minister of Transport. We have heard statements as to the influence of the fact of the Minister of Transport being a railwayman, and how that will affect electricity in this country. I take it that as a railwayman he has always been accustomed to deal with the public, and in this subject of electricity he will realise that he should deal with it as an ordinary business man. As to the fear that the interests of railways will predominate, I have not the slightest belief that that will take place, and I think the Minister will realise that it is necessary to make his Department not only as profitable, but as useful as possible to the whole community. This is a prejudice that was engendered by the campaign that was instituted in the first instance against the Ministry of Transport. We have heard it again and again, and we have been told because the Minister was a railwayman he could not possibly do justice to roads or canals or docks, and now to electricity. One of the things which puzzles the outsider is what should be placed in different Government Departments. For instance, one is mystified to find that the Board of Agriculture has charge of Fisheries. I cannot imagine why we should place the administration of a huge constructive and highly technical work like that of electricity under the Board of Trade. Under other circumstances I could imagine it going to the Board of Works, but certainly not to the Board of Trade, which is already heavily overweighted. I am sure that the House will consent to this Amendment. We have had some recantations, and I hear there are others in preparation. I believe that the House will realise that to place a
matter which involves a large amount of construction in the hands of a practical Department is the best thing for the country. When we hear of driving power, I think we still need a good deal of it in this country and not governors or brakes but that we want to go ahead. If this power is not supplied at this critical period it will be bad for the country. Therefore, I hope that this Bill will be given a chance, and that private considerations will not intervene. I have heard, as a member of the Electricity Committee, tender consideration suggested for private interests. I do not want to ignore them, but the public weal and benefit should be considered first, and for that reason I support the Amendment.

Mr. NEAL: With reference to what has been said as to recantation, I hope I shall never be afraid of recanting errors. I would say that if the Government had given a little greater time I do not think this question would have had to be discussed on the Report stage. I entirely agree with the principle that there ought to be very little interference with the decisions of Grand Committees. That is to say, I take it that there ought to be no greater interference with decisions of Grand Committees than there would be with the decisions of the Whole House sitting in Committee. What is it that comes up on Report stage? Surely in the discussions in Committee certain matters emerge which afterwards turn out to be of greater importance than was appreciated at the moment, and this is one of them. This is not a question of principle. There is no vital principle involved in this discussion, and it is a pure question with those of us who strongly favour this Bill and desire to see it having the most beneficent effects of what is best to be done. We are only anxious that it should be placed in the Department which will administer it sympathetically, effectively, and wisely. I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G. Balfour). I am not able to do so, and I would not if I could—in a discussion on the technique of electricity, or to say anything about only a small number of Members having been present in the Committee. I disclaim any association with that idea. Those who were present heard the arguments and voted accordingly, and I do not think this House ought to be asked to reverse decisions merely on the question of the size of the Committee present at the moment. But what is the position to-day? We are
told by His Majesty's Government, speaking as one Government, and not speaking with diverse views—and this is important, because we were not so sure of it upstairs as now—that this matter is of vital importance for the good administration of this Bill. Although I am not myself the most docile and faithful of the supporters of the Government, yet there are some matters upon which I am prepared to accept guidance from the Government. After all, this is a matter of how the Government shall split the work of the Government into Departmental administrative positions, and it is a matter very largely for the consideration of the Government itself. Therefore I do attach weight to the fact that the Home Secretary tells us with the weight of the Cabinet that, having thought this matter out, they attach great and, if I followed the right hon. Gentleman correctly, vital importance to this particular new Clause.
What is the position? There is no Departmental jealousy. Any idea of that must have been dissipated by the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, and there are no fraternal differences, and we are not interfering in a family quarrel. We have a President of the Board of Trade who came to the conclusion that this was a business which ought to go over to the new Ministry of Transport, and the Home Secretary told us they had to consider which Department was to administer this Bill. It is, of course, possible to set up a new Ministry, and possibly a few months ago that would have been the cure. But if you do not set up a new Ministry something has got to happen. What is the function of the Board of Trade? The right hon. Baronet opposite read out a long string of functions, but I summarise those by saying that the functions of the Board of Trade appear to be Departmental and administrative. What are to be the functions of the Ministry which controls this development of electricity? I think they must be active and constructive. It is quite possible to build up a new Department in the Board of Trade that would be a constructive Department, but it would have to be a new Department there, and it would lead to the duplication of staffs and expense. But that is not all. It is not an easy matter in this country to find men of supreme ability and tact in high professional positions who are willing to go into the Government service at a financial sacrifice, because that is what it involves, and there
would be great difficulty in getting the right men. We are building up to-day a new Ministry of Transport. I do not care a fig if it is concerned with the railways. It is a new Ministry, and as we are building up a new Ministry it is the simplest matter in the world to fit into the work of that Ministry the new duties concerned with electricity. Some hon. Members have spoken as though there was some sort of competition between transport and trade. Surely that is a very narrow view, and is it not the real view that transport and trade are interlocked and can never be Separated. Transport depends for its success upon trade and trade depends for its success upon transport, and the two must be co-ordinated. An hon. Member put a question as to whether there was not a staff at the Board of Trade on this subject. Those of us who have had anything to do with this, know that there has been working there at this Bill a very distinguished electrician making certain preparations and having certain conversations and discussions. It is of supreme importance that that staff should not be lost to the country, and I would be glad to hear from the Minister of Transport, if he intervenes in the Debate, some statement as to what is intended with reference to the staff at the Board of Trade, the very expert and excellent staff which I believe has started with the confidence of every person interested in this matter. If we hear from him that they will be taken over en bloc, then any difficulty of that description at once disappears.
What else is there? The Ministry of Transport, if it is to be successful, will have to envisage the whole commercial position of this country. Transport is vital to the whole of the land, and it will require to have not merely an electrical stall, for that is only a small part of it, but also a surveying staff and experts of various kinds to go into the whole problem, and as they look at it from the point of view of transport they can quite easily look at it from the point of view of electricity. If I might make one suggestion, to the Minister of Transport, I would say that the Commissioners' position should be defined quite clearly. Under the Bill the Commissioners are entrusted with certain duties which are semi-judicial. As to those I make bold to say that the House would wish that they should have unfettered discretion. It would be quite impossible, whatever Ministry the Commissioners are serving under when they
are acting judicially, that they should be under the guidance of anybody except their own judgment. Beyond that, the Commissioners have a great many functions of a most important character in the development of electricity, and I hope we shall hear from the Minister of Transport that in these matters they will not be subordinated to any other electrical official who comes in to advise the Minister—for instance, upon the question of the electrification of railways. I shall be very glad to hear from the Minister that in matters of that description he hopes to look to the Commissioners for his chief advice and guidance. I hope I shall not be ashamed, so long as I have the privilege of a seat in this House, to change my opinion and to change my vote if I can see good ground for doing so, and, for the reasons which I have ventured to put before the House, I hope many of my colleagues on the Committee will do the same.

Sir F. HALL: I am sure that anybody who knows my hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down will agree that, at all events, in changing his mind he has given the matter his most careful consideration. I have no recantation to make to the House. The hon. Member stated this afternoon that on Clause 44, as it was then, dealing with the transfer of the powers to the Ministry of Transport, there was not much discussion. I readily admit it, and it was because we had gone through that Bill, Clause by Clause, on the distinct understanding that it was to go to the Board of Trade. We had the advice of the officials of the Board of Trade, and, although I see the Minister of Transport has backed the Bill, yet, at all events, he was conspicuous by his absence from the Committee Room.

Mr. SHORTT: Is the hon. Member suggesting that I ever gave an undertaking that the electricity scheme should go to the Board of Trade?

Sir F. HALL: Not at all. I do not think I have made any suggestion to that effect, but I repeat that there was not much discussion on Clause 44 because the Committee as a whole, or by a large majority, which was shown by their vote, was under the impression that the carrying out of the undertaking would be done by the Board of Trade. We were justified in assuming that on the ground that on one or two occasions my hon. and gallant Friend the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Sir Rhys Williams) came to the Committee, but the Minister himself never came to give us any advice, and I cannot help thinking it is rather an extraordinary thing that at the eleventh hour a Cabinet meeting is apparently held, and—I say it plainly—some pressure must have been brought to bear to have changed the whole question as to who was to have the carrying out of the electricity scheme. We have had, as I say, the advice of officials from the Board of Trade, but we have been told to-day by the Home Secretary that it is driving power that is required in the electricity scheme. I admit that driving power is required, but apparently we are now told there is no driving power in the Board of Trade. I am sorry to hear it, and I can quite understand the awkward position of the President of the Board of Trade in having to present himself to the House to-day, after hearing the eulogistic terms in regard to his Department, and say. "As far as I am concerned, the duties can better be carried out by another Department" I say it is a deplorable thing, and if certain Departments are wanting in driving power the sooner we make vast alterations in those Departments the better, not only for this House but for the country in general. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Flannery) has been most conservative. He was one of four who voted that the measure should be carried out by the Minister of Transport. He has no recantation to make, and I congratulate him on his loneliness in the Committee Room upstairs. Perhaps it was because not only were there only four and twenty Members present when the Division was taken, but I think if the hon. Member looks carefully through the Divisions that took place, he would possibly find that he, at all events, was not quite so conspicuous by his presence in the Committee Room when this Bill was under discussion. I am not saying that because he happened to be there then, and was not there generally, he was not qualified to give his vote. He is thoroughly well versed in business matters, and I do not believe he gave his vote without having carefully considered the matter, but he should not throw stones because there did not happen to be seventy-five Members of the Committee present at that meeting. Is there to be a special edict that no Member of this House can vote on a single measure unless he happens to have listened to every discussion that has taken place? There are no Govern-
ment Whips upstairs, and therefore a Member has an opportunity when he gives his vote of giving it after having heard the evidence adduced, and I say it is going to be a bad thing for the House of Commons if, for instance, under the new Rules of Procedure constituting these Standing Committees, you consider it advisable to send Bills up for discussion and think it necessary that they should have the advantage of the attendance of expert advisers to assist any Member of the Committee seeking assistance, but that as soon as the Bill comes downstairs again, if it does not happen to meet with the approbation of one specific member of His Majesty's Government, the Bill is to be turned down and the whole of the work of the Committee thrown away. That is not a good thing for the Government of this country.

Sir F. BANBURY: Is the hon. Member aware that the Government not only intends to do what he has just said, but to go back upon certain Amendments which they agreed to in Committee?

Sir F. HALL: I presume the hon. Baronet refers to Amendments accepted by the Government in regard to generating stations and railways and docks. It was a sad moment when the docks were thrown at my right hon. Friend by the weight of the careful consideration of the Committee, but I find that Amendments have been put on the Paper casting away the whole of the work done by that Committee. The Government have said, "The work that you people who were sent upstairs to listen and weigh up this matter have done is nothing at all." If that is going to be the case, it only proves what an absolute farce this new Government procedure is. This is a matter, perhaps, that the hon. Baronet will pay particular attention to, because in the olden times we used to have theses Bills committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and, of course, every Member of the House was present in the Committee stage at those times, and it was only in consequence of all the Members of the House being present in Committee that they voted upon certain questions. I am sorry to find the Government have thought it necessary to adopt this course, because I do not think they have explained it away at all. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has come down practically clothed in a white sheet and has told us that he cannot carry on the duties. From the Minister of Transport, of course, we are
to expect a new Heaven, although I have not noticed it up to the present, but if he has so much spare time on his hands at the Ministry of Transport that it does not matter what things come along, and he will take the electricity on as a sort of make-weight, I think we shall be justified in expecting a very speedy alteration in the present congestion of traffic. My hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrew (Mr. Johnstone) stated with regard to his recantation that it was largely based on the fact that there was an alteration in the Transport Bill. I happen to know some thing about that Bill, because I was one of those unfortunate Members who sat for nineteen days in Committee on that one Bill, and I may have a very short memory, but I cannot call to mind any tremendous alteration in it. I do know this, that a certain number of us caused a little thought to the Government with regard to the deletion of Clause 3, and perhaps that is what my hon. Friend is thinking about but that was not a question of taking away any of the work from the Minister of Transport. The House decided, and I maintain rightly decided, that it was not going to give way on a question with regard to Orders in Council, and that is practically the only alteration in the Transport Bill, because although many of us—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a very long way from the Clause.

Sir F. HALL: Yes, Sir; but the Member for East Renfrew—I must clear it up, with all deference, if you will allow me, and—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think we had better get to the subject before the House.

Sir F. HALL: I say that there is no alteration in that Bill at all.

Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with the subject we are now discussing.

Sir F. HALL: The duties that devolve upon the Minister of Transport are as large as they were before, and I say that I hope, at all events, that if it is eventually decided that it shall be left to the Ministry of Transport, I personally think it will be inadvisable. I am not here to say I withdraw anything I said in Committee. I adhere to it, and for this reason. The opinion was so overwhelming, so far as I am concerned, that it should be left to the Board of Trade, that I hope this House will affirm the decision that was arrived at by the Committee upstairs.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): I would like to assure the House, and my hon. Friend who has just bat down, that it is no desire to have more work for the Ministry of Transport that makes me speak in favour of this new Clause. It is an honest and an earnest opinion, just as I am quite sure his is, that it is best for the promotion of the electric power of the country that this should be done. There is no other reason at all. We set out with an ideal that, so far as possible, we should have one control of electric power, so that, although it might be used or might be generated at different voltages, different frequences, different classes of current, direct or alternating, at any rate it should be upon a plan that the gauge—if I may use that word—should be the most appropriate gauge, and that they should not be mixed. I hope to demonstrate to the House what I mean by mixing the gauge in electricity. It has been mixed on railways, and it is one of our greatest troubles to-day. It has been mixed on canals, and it is one of our greatest troubles to-day, and we are going on the same headlong course to mix it in electricity. It is because of that that we should endeavour to get all generating stations and transmissions into one control. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson) said that when the Bill was introduced, railways had been excluded from the general scheme. I think, if he will look at Clause 7 of the original Bill, he will find that is not so. Railway generating stations were included. I have freshened my memory by looking at the original Bill. The Committee found that, although they had excluded the generating stations, they could not in fact exclude the railways altogether, because they provided that, although the railways might have their own system, and do not come within the purview of the Electricity Commission, except by consent, they could not get along, or they could not allow the Bill to go through, without providing that the railways might be used for the cables transmitting the power from one part of the country to another. They had to be brought in some way, but apparently they had to be left out in some way, and there we start on the great division between the great users of electricity.
We may take the figure as more or less approximately representing the proportionate use of electric current by the railways in the near future at 20 per cent, as between railways and industry generally.
It is true that is only one-fifth, but it is, I believe, without doubt the largest proportion of electricity used by any one industry, and there is no other industry in the country that is so compact, either to-day or before the present control, as railways. They run into each other. Their interworking arrangements have to be very close, and if there is one industry spread all over the country that lends itself to a general policy of electric current, I venture to think it is railways, whether in their pre-war company-managed state, or whether they are in the present controlled state, lasting two years, and we do not know what the future state is going to be. That is one reason why I think it is very important that we should not place too much stress upon the fact that the railways are only estimated to use one-fifth of the current, because it is a very important fifth and it is a fifth which is important in other ways. The ordinary electric supply companies supply current in a certain area. A railway, by the very nature of its industry, or the very geographical configuration of its property, supplies electricity on a longitudinal line. Is it not an important factor that the current is carried through this country long distances? Therefore, it has an added importance to its original 20 per cent. proportion of electricity. So I think, under two heads, you can lay greater stress on the fifth than the mere proportion justifies.
But railways have got another interest, and I would prefer, if it had been possible, to have said that transportation had another interest, because the transportation side, rather than the operative side of railways, is affected by what I wish to point out to the House. The moment you electrify a railway, you sink a large fixed capital on that line, and the greater the density of the traffic the greater the benefit from the electrification. It is quite a different thing when you are putting on locomotive power, which is moveable. The greater your load factor the cheaper the electricity. It is obvious, therefore, that the moment you carry high tension down a line across the country into the rural areas, where we want our industries, if we are going to solve the housing problem, and the local labour problem, you create an immediate and a direct interest on the part of transportation to develop industries, to get a better load factor by the use of electricity in those districts, and to get a denser traffic on the lines electrified. The very moment you have electrified a
line, these two important factors come in in favour of the general user of current throughout the country. There is no other industry to which that applies. I am not anxious, as is the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. G Balfour), to go into technical details, but I would just like to tell the House of the present position in London. We are trying to see whether we can get what I have called, incorrectly I know, but I hope descriptively, one gauge as far as possible. The number of power stations in London to-day is seventy-nine. The number of different types or systems of generation is fifty. The number of different periodicities is ten, and the number of different voltages is thirty-two. In London alone five-elevenths of the electricity generated is used for transportation to-day, and electrification schemes are under consideration for the Midland Railway, the Great Eastern Railway, the South Eastern Railway, and the London Brighton and South Coast Railway. They are all proposing to go in for electrification. Is it wise, is it prudent to do what the Committee has done, and keep that railway electrification under one Ministry and the rest of London under another? It is five-elevenths today; it will be six-elevenths and seven-elevenths soon. Is it wise to separate that as the Committee has, done upstairs? It has done that not only for London but for other places. Averages are very difficult to deal with. You have got to take specific places. I have given a specific and an important case, and there may be other examples as good, or approaching as good as that, throughout the country.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any other percentages for other great centres of population in the country, or has he any general percentage outside London?

Sir E. GEDDES: I have no other figures like that. That was given me as an instance of London, the capital, but I have no doubt that similar figures could be got for other places.

Sir F. FLANNERY: Will the electrification of the railways which my right hon. Friend has mentioned increase the consumption to 20 per cent.?

Sir E. GEDDES: In London, certainly, it is about 20 per cent.

Sir F. FLANNERY: What is it for the country?

Sir E. GEDDES: That is what is estimated by experts as the probable amount all over the country. We have discussed it on that basis of roughly one-fifth. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead made a considerable point of a technical question, taking as an illustration—I do not know why he should—the North-Eastern Railway. The North-Eastern system has three sections of electrification. The first, I think, was the original multiple unit suburban train service running in this country. The second was a pure experiment on a short-distance line in 1915, and the third, which was dealt with in the paper the hon. Gentleman read, is the result of that experiment, and I have no doubt the difference which was quoted as condemning any idea of a unified system is the result of the experiment on some sixteen miles or so which they put down. The line which was quoted is the result of a very short experiment, and they have improved upon their specifications.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: If the current used by a railway company is direct current at 1,500 volts, that has no direct relation with the type of current generated at any power station in Great Britain or elsewhere.

Sir E. GEDDES: I hardly feel competent to argue on technical matters with my hon. Friend, but am I not right in saying that alternating current is trans formed into direct current?

Mr. BALFOUR: That is so, and therefore it does not matter what the type of generating station is. The railway undertaking is the one undertaking which is independent of type, because you have to convert the current into direct current, and it does not matter whether your rotary converter is driven from a power station at 25 cycles per second or 50 cycles per second.

7.0 P.M.

Sir E. GEDDES: I am afraid I am not altogether advised in that way, but we cannot discuss it yet. I agree that there is a great deal to be said for the opinion of those who say, "Why give electricity generally over to a Department which is interested in transportation, when transportation is one of the users of electricity? The interests may clash." I agree that there is a good deal to be said for that, but in these matters we have to weigh the advantages and the disadvantages, and, for the reasons I have given to the House as briefly as I can, I have come to the
conclusion that the balance of advantage is in favour of combining the whole of the electrical user in the one Ministry. There are other reasons which have been discussed to-day, such as the suitability of the Department, and the staffing of the Department, into which I will not enter. I agree that there is a great deal to be said for those who fear that somehow or other these Electricity Commissioners may be swallowed and controlled by the railway or the transportation interest. I think myself that it would improve the measure, if the House sees fit to pass this new Clause, if we put in safeguards which at any rate would bind my successor—however good my intentions may be—and which would ensure that the Commissioners and the Chief Commissioner should be independent of any other influence in the Ministry. We took that course in the Transport Act in relation to roads, and I suggest that at a later stage, either in this House or in another place, the Government might introduce safeguards of that kind. It is my intention, and I would like to have it laid down in the Bill, because I look upon it as absolutely fundamental, that the Electricity Commissioners must be independent of the transportation side. I admit that it is a disadvantage to put them under the Ministry of Transport, but I think the advantages vastly outweigh the disadvantages. Apart from that, I would like to say that there has been an impression that the Chief Commissioner-designate, Sir John Snell, might not be in favour of this transfer, and would not be prepared to work under the Minister of Transport, because he feared that there would be principles which he would not approve of. I am glad to be able to tell the House that, as long ago as June last, I came to a complete understanding with him, and that to-day I have discussed the matter with him again, and have again a complete understanding with him on exactly the same lines. Sir John Snell has told me to-day that he is quite prepared to transfer, and presumably the rest of the Board of Trade staff will transfer also, to the Ministry of Transport, and that he is prepared to take up the Chief Comrnissionership there if the House passes this Clause.

Viscount ELVEDEN: I have listened with some interest to the speech of the Minister of Transport and to the other speeches for some little time, and I have
been impressed with the fact that the Government has been trying to make the case that there is really no change of plan. If hon. Members will look at the Order Paper they will realise, from the Amendments which were agreed and accepted between the railway companies and the Government as recently as a few days go, after long conferencs of which I am personally cognisant, that the whole fabric of the Bill is being altered owing to this change of policy within a few hours. I see that the Leader of the House shakes his head. I can assure him that, from a very early stage of this Bill, the question was asked why the railway companies were to be under the Board of Trade, as railway efficiency was the responsibility of the railway companies still, or it might be so again in two years time. The result was that the Government accepted endless Amendments, which are now part of the Bill, and those, in a very large measure, are to be taken away this very evening, if the House accepts this Clause. No doubt it will soon be asked, "Why protect the railways when the Minister of Transport is actually in possession and controlling the whole electrical situation?" Unfortunately, the Minister of Transport has not spent nineteen days wearily hearing the threshing out of the details and the intricate and complicated interlocking of this measure which is brought to-day for Report. I think that if he had, we should have had quite different safeguards—safeguards, it may be, which some of these Amendments will give for the safety of the community when they travel by rail. They may be rather different from the point of view of ownership of the companies; they may be quite different from the point of view of the property of the shareholders, but nevertheless some Amendments must be made in that direction if you alter the Department which is looking after this Bill.
Then, again, the trading community were led to believe that the Commissioners would really be considering entirely the interests of the trading com-community, and therefore the trading community have not agitated, as the railway interest did, to get their safeguards and to see that they are allowed to get the sort of electricity that they require in their factories. This electricity question is of vital importance to the whole community. Expert after expert has assured me that there was really no great financial advantage, if there was any financial ad-
vantage at all, in having power stations above a certain size. That there is actually a great loss is well known if the power has to be transmitted to a great distance, and that loss is greater than if you dragged the coal that originally gives the energy all the way by rail.
It is true that during the Committee stage I have been responsible for trying to voice the point of view of the railways. If it had been a private Bill we should have had experts pleading instead, and much better they would have done it, and we should have been able to sit in judgment, as we should. Now, however, it is my duty to consider the whole community. Are you, by putting the community under the railways, getting the community into the same position that the railways were in when they were under the Board of Trade? I think that time is necessary, and that these Amendments, and the new aspect of the situation, should be carefully considered. Personally, I think that, after the long Committee stage, it is a great pity to change the whole aspect of the situation and turn it completely inside out. One has been assured again and again that there is no intention on the part of the experts who would be responsible for this Bill to put the main transmission lines throughout the country along the railways. It was said that it would be ridiculous to construct "Eiffel towers" such as are used in the transmission of electric power from Niagara Falls. If you want to put a siding in somewhere, and an "Eiffel tower" stands in the way, you will probably have, to change the whole line, because it would be better to divert the traffic than to pull down the "Eiffel tower" and interrupt the main transmission line. I am no expert in the matter, but over and over again these arguments have been put to me. I know that, looking out of the train in Canada, I have seen these "Eiffel towers," and they are never close to the railway, but are a long way off. They have very cheap water power there, and do not use coal. You cannot take a waterfall to a distance except by electricity, but you can take the coal in wagons, and it does seem to me, therefore, that the problem is quite different from that of our American neighbours. It has been said that the railway companies surely must be left responsible to the public for the duties of maintaining their service. I dare say it is perfectly
right to have the Minister responsible for that, but for Heaven's sake let us finish the job, and wait till the two years are up and we know what we are going to do. If you are going merely to have the Minister responsible, and not the companies, let the country know, and do not leave it to Orders in Council or something which may develop in the future. Are the railway companies still to be responsible for supplying power for their transportation? If so, make them responsible, and leave them outside the purview of this Bill. The Government are proposing to put them into this Bill, because they have changed the head who is to look after the Bill. It seems to me that it needs hours and hours of reflection. If you are going to turn the thing right inside out in twenty-four or forty-eight hours, you may do incalculable harm in the future.
I am alarmed by the speech of the Minister of Transport, because he has now told us that it is his intention that the power generated for the railways shall come from the same source as that generated for the rest of the community. Expert after expert has told me that that is wrong from another point of view, which really does not need the explanation of an expert. Are the railway companies to hold the reserves of coal? Are the railway companies, or the Government, to be responsible for the wages of the people who operate the coal to the power station? I do not know if I am transgressing any technical point, but I feel that somehow or other a trade union might interrupt, not only the intercommunication of the whole of the country, but also the whole of the industries of the country, on a minor dispute with some particular industry. I think that that is a grave danger, and is one of those points that should be thrashed out in Committee; and I think it is one of the points that every hon. Member should have in his mind when he goes into the Lobby on this proposition if the Government persevere with it. It is putting everything into the melting-pot. One of the arguments in favour of electrification has been that it would be easy to break a strike. It is true that you can get people to operate the "dead man's hand" on an electric line more easily than you can get people to stoke an engine, but you are absolutely in the hands of the power station and the pickets on the power station. The whole problem needs the most careful consideration, and I do ask
the Government, if they really intend to persevere with this suggestion, to give us, and to give themselves, time really to consider the whole position and hear what the railway companies experts have to say from this point of view. If they force it to-night, I shall feel bound to go into the Lobby against them, because I am convinced that a hurried move of this sort, which is a complete reversal of the whole Bill, is a grave mistake.

Sir W. PEARCE: On the one side in this matter you have the majority of the Committee, and, I must say from information which reaches me, their opinion is very much reinforced by the almost unanimous voice of the manufacturers and the industrial people of this country. They feel very strongly upon the point and are entirely in favour of this matter being kept by the Board of Trade. First of all, they note that the Minister of Transport is himself going to be a large consumer of electricity. I think it was very unwise of him in arguing before the Committee to-day to put forward the importance of the use of electricity on the railways as a reason for giving these powers to the Ministry of Transport. That is exactly the point. I repeat that the Minister suggested that the railway interest was of even greater importance than the House realised. We are not, I think, exaggerating the fears of the industrial part of the community. They have felt all the way through that the Ministry of Transport, if a large and important consumer of electricity, would get preferential treatment. All that has been said to-day by the right hon. Gentleman, I am afraid, will not diminish, but rather increase, their fears.
In a large part of London to-day there is a short supply of electricity, and it has to be apportioned out amongst the manufacturers. That only shows this: that if the Ministry of Transport produces electricity itself the right hon. Gentleman will take a preference. That is one of the great reasons why the London manufacturers' opinion is in favour of the Board of Trade. Another very important reason is this. The Government really ought to know that all through the country there is a great difficulty of transporting large quantities of goods, an enormous difficulty, and it never was so bad as to-day. Month by month the situation has become graver and graver till—I say it without hesitation—that at no time during the
five years of the War was it so difficult to get large quantities of goods carried from one place to another as to-day, I am quite certain no problem is so important, if you are to get ready for the development of the country, as that the Transport Minister should develop traffic. It is because that has not been attained—I do not want unduly to reproach the right hon. Gentleman—it is because the Transport problem is in such an unsatisfactory condition to-day that the industrial community feel grave fears as to whether it is quite wise to give this, into the hands of the Minister of Transport.
There is another side to this question. After all, the one control is going to be the most important factor in the provision of electricity. I think there is something to be said for that if you want to get matters decided quickly. Quickness leads to the avoidance of delay, and I think there is a good deal to be said in setting up electricity under the Minister of Transport. I was not a member of the Committee, but I am a Member of the House and a Member of the Coalition Government. This is a Government Bill. The Government come down to-day and tell us that the Board of Trade do not want these powers and that the Ministry of Transport does. They tell us that they have considered the matter carefully, and they have made up their minds that the matter should be given to the Minister of Transport. It is a great responsibility to vote against that sort of opinion. I confess to the qualms I have had, and I have described the fears of myself and others; but, as this is a Government Bill, and as the Government have this opinion on the subject, in spite of my qualms I am not prepared to vote against the Government.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I shall detain the House for only a very few moments, because I have no very strong opinion as to the Inter-departmental merits of the "Board of Trade and the Ministry of Transport in regard to this question. My own feelings in the matter might very faithfully be described in the lines:
How happy could I be with either Were t'other dear brother away.
That is my feeling in regard to the two Departments. But I do want to say one word as to the way in which I feel the Committee upstairs have been treated by the Government procedure in this matter. We sat altogether for nineteen days. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dul-
wich (Sir F. Hall) was perfectly right when he said that throughout the whole discussions on this Bill we were proceeding on the assumption that this Clause 44 would be altered in the way in which the Committee has altered it. I hasten to add that the Home Secretary never gave any sort of assurance to that effect, and, so far as I know, no such assurance was given on behalf of the Government in the Committee to that effect. At the same time my hon. Friend opposite is perfectly right when he assures the House that the discussions upstairs took place, and were continued throughout, on the presupposition that this Clause was going to be deleted from the Bill by the action of the Committee, if not by the action of the Government. It proved in the end it was deleted from the Bill by the action, almost unanimous, of the Committee upstairs.
Now, Sir, the grievance which I have against the Government in the matter is this: We have listened this afternoon to a series of most moving and eloquent speeches from the Treasury Bench. What I want to ask the Government is, Why were these speeches not delivered upstairs? Had not the Government at that time made up their minds upon one of the most important Clauses in the whole Bill? If they had made up their minds, how was it that, with the forces they had—I will not say at their control—but the forces upon which they bring influence to bear upstairs—they were only able to muster in the Division Lobby four supporters on the Government side? We had not one word addressed to us upstairs either by the Minister of Transport himself—I do not recollect that I ever saw him in the Committee. We had not one word from the Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Transport on this question. The Home Secretary himself was absent from the Committee when the Clause was under discussion, though he was in charge of the Bill. All we had was a speech, a very half-hearted speech, from the Undersecretary to the Board of Trade. I admit he was in a very delicate position, as he himself said. But what he said did not influence the voting in the direction in which he spoke. In this matter the whole House has, I submit, a very real grievance against the Government.

Captain KNIGHTS: Before we divide, one question to the Minister of Transport. The right hon. Gentleman said that five-elevenths of the current generated in
London was used for transport, and the suggestion of this figure was that that current was used for railway traffic alone. Am I correct in the surmise that this figure includes all the electricity generated for the tramway services?

Sir E. GEDDES: For transportation generally.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause accordingly read a second time.

Mr. SUGDEN: I beg to move, alter the words "Minister of Transport" ["construed as references to the Minister of Transport"], to insert the words "provided that no such Order in Council shall have effect unless it has been laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for twenty-one days."
Some of the Rules and Regulations which have been of quite correct application under the old state of things may, perhaps, be inapplicable or not equally useful and serviceable under the new regime that, it has been suggested, will be carried out by the Bill. I suggest that in consideration of the vast field of research which is vital and essential if electricity is to be supplied to the arts, sciences, and crafts of this country, it is desirable that all the different interests, social and scientific as well as handicrafts, should have full knowledge and cognisance as to what are the laws and Regulations applicable under the new system.

Mr. JODRELL: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: The House of Commons has decided that point by giving the Second Reading, and those powers are to be transferred. All the Order in Council does is to say whether on the 1st of June or January next the Order shall commence. I am sure my hon. Friend will not insist that an Order of this kind should go through all the procedure which might be necessary if the Order was one transferring powers.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Eventually the powers under this Bill will be transferred to the Ministry of Transport. The Bill provides that these powers commence with the Board of Trade. The whole question is whether the date is to be decided with the further consideration of the House or without it. It is perfectly clear that, having read the Clause a second time, we merely give power to His Majesty in Council to transfer a certain power which
we are giving to the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Transport. Therefore, I think, this House should have an opportunity of saying when the transfer should take place, as it would have if the Order in Council was laid on the Table for twenty-one days, and then hon. Members could move an Address praying that the Order be annulled or that the date be changed. This Amendment retains the power to the House to say when the date of transfer should take place from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Transport.

Amendment negatived.

Sir F. HALL: I beg to move, to leave out the words "the Ministry of Transport after consultation with."
The latter part of the new Clause will then read
Provided that the power of appointing electricity commissioners under this Act shall be exercised by the Board of Trade.
We had a long discussion on this matter, but I think the Government might meet us in this way. There is a very large opinion in this House and outside in industrial quarters that a great majority of the electricity undertakings and people connected with industries which is not in favour of this electricity scheme going to the Ministry of Transport. If the Government will meet us and say that the appointment of Electricity Commissioners shall rest with the Board of Trade, I think it will give a certain amount of confidence throughout the country. Rightly or wrongly, there is no disguising the fact that a great many people think it is inadvisable that a competing authority with the electricity scheme should rest with them, and if the appointment of the Electricity Commissioners is also to rest with the Minister of Transport we shall not have any neutral authority at all. The Electricity Commissioners have to discuss with the Minister of Transport very important matters. In this Amendment I am not asking the Government to concede much. The whole matter has been fully discussed, and I think there would be great satisfaction throughout the country if the right hon. Gentleman would agree to this Amendment.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so simply on the grounds that these Electricity Commissioners are to exercise quasi-judicial functions, and, that being
so, it seems to me desirable that they should be appointed by the Board of Trade instead of the Minister of Transport.

Mr. SHORTT: I am sure both the Mover and the Seconder of this Amendment will appreciate, on reflection, that it is quite impossible to accept this Amendment as it stands. The result would be the absolute appointment of these Commissioners who are to work with the Minister of Transport by another Department who are to be responsible for the policy the Minister of Transport may put forward. You could not possibly expect one Department to have one of their most important officials appointed by some other Department. I appreciate the position that the Electricity Commissioners perform semi-judicial functions. Their main qualification will be their knowledge of electricity, electrical supply, and so on; but they will have certain functions of a quasi-judicial character. I should be prepared to accept the words "with the concurrence of the Board of Trade."

Sir F. HALL: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I will accept this suggestion. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: Leave out the words "after consultation."

After the word "the" ["the Board of Trade"], to insert the words "concurrence of."—[Mr. Shortt.]

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Powers of Electricity Commissioners to Suspend or Annul Contracts.)

Where upon an application to the Electricity Commissioners by any party to a contract for the supply of electricity entered into before the passing of this Act, the Commissioners are satisfied that, owing to the passing of this Act or anything done thereunder or to any circumstances arising out of the War, the contract cannot be enforced according to its terms without serious hardship the Commissioners may, after considering all the circumstances of the case and the position of all the parties to the contract and any offer which may have been made by any party for a variation of the contract, suspend or annul or, with the consent of the parties, amend as from such date as the Commissioners may think fit the contract or any term thereof or any rights arising thereunder on such conditions (if any) as the Commissioners may think fit.— [Mr. Neal.]

Brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. NEAL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
I propose to put the House in possession of the reasons which induced me to make
this Motion. Under the Bill as it stands at this moment, the scheme is to take away from the present undertakers, whether they be municipal or private company undertakers, their generating stations in certain events, and to leave them as distributors of the current. Many of these undertakers, under Statute, have entered into contracts for a period of years to supply electricity to certain consumers, and, consequently, their whole outlook is now changed, and they may find it impossible to carry out their contracts—in fact, in some cases they may find it quite impossible to carry out those contracts at all. The Clause which I move suggests that the Electricity Commissioners whose judicial capacity has already been referred to shall be empowered in certain circumstances either to cancel the contract or to amend it, with the consent of the parties, or to vary it so far as to make it a just and equitable contract having regard to the circumstances of the case. I moved an Amendment in precisely similar terms, except with reference to the date, in the Committee, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who was then in charge of the Bill, did me the honour of saying that between then and the Report stage the Government would give consideration to the matter, though he held out no hope that they might accept it. The answer which was made to me then was this: If you refer to the Electricity Companies Act, 1899, you will find that in cases where undertakers are prevented by force, majeure from fulfilling their statutory obligations, namely, to give a supply to any person who reasonably and within the statutory limits calls for a supply, they are under no penalty. I do not think that Statute touches this matter at all. It is not a case of contractual right; it is a case of the statutory right of the public to call for a supply. It is not a case of impossibility of performance of something which a company has undertaken to do; it is, in fact, a penal Clause put in to sec that there is no preferential treatment given by the company. Therefore, I suggest that affords no answer to this Clause. The Courts Emergency Powers Act was mentioned as having some bearing upon this matter. Again, I suggest that Act is not germane to this subject. The Courts Emergency Powers Act gives to the Court power to interfere in certain contracts made before 1st January, 1917, and to do justice as the new circumstances demand in those
matters. This would not come under the Courts Emergency Powers Act as to anything except the part which mentions the "circumstances arising out of the War."
The object I have in moving this Clause is to protect undertakers who through this Act are put in a position that they cannot fulfil their obligations. I was asked how that could be, and against me it was urged that under this Bill, as it stands, undertakers are given certain rights to call for a supply of electricity not less in quantity and not dearer in price than they could obtain from their own stations or from any extension of their own stations that they may have in contemplation. Even that would not cover the whole matter. May I put one single illustration? Let the House assume that there has been a contract made—I am told there are many—whereby electricity is to be supplied to a consumer at a price varying with the price of coal delivered at a generating station. Suppose as the result of this Bill, as it may well be, that generating station ceases to be operated, because obviously the policy is to scrap the ineffective stations and to establish effective stations in their places. It would then be quite impossible to carry out that contract according to its terms. That is only one illustration. I am advised that there are many more, and the submission that I make is that when those cases do arise there can be no hardship and no injustice in asking the Commissioners, who will have as full and complete a knowledge of all the circumstances of the case as anyone could wish, to see that justice is done between the parties. I do not like to invite this House at any time to interfere with contracts which have been solemnly made between parties. It is a policy which requires justification, and the justification which, I suggest is that when the House by its own act interferes with the ability of parties to perform contracts it is a necessary sequel and corollary that the House should point out in what way they are to be relieved from the consequences of the failure for which they are not responsible

Mr. MALLALIEU: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. SHORTT: I certainly listened with some curiosity and expectation to learn what was the real motive of this Clause and whether it was intended to protect undertakers or consumers. I was very sur-
prised when I saw an Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend on the Paper asking Parliament to interfere in a private contract. I did not know whether it was intended to assist the consumer who, having entered into a contract with existing undertakers and being bound to accept electricity from those undertakers, might want to get his current at half the price from the new district board. I thought that might be the reason, arid, as the Clause stands, any consumer who found it would be cheaper to obtain his current from a district board would be able to say that he desired to have his contract set aside. It is suggested by my hon. Friend, however, that it is intended to protect undertakers. I cannot imagine why, because Parliament has passed an Act to protect undertakers who happen to have been hit by the War, Parliament should pass another Act having nothing whatever to do with the War, but none the less enabling people to apply to have their contracts amended or set aside. An instance was given by the hon. Member of cases where the price was conditional upon the price at which the coal could be delivered to the generating station. I cannot for the life of me understand why this Bill should put an end to that contract.

Mr. NEAL: It puts an end to the station.

Mr. SHORTT: The Bill puts an end to the station it is true, but it provides that the undertakers shall still have their electricity, and as cheaply as they could have got it. The only thing that the coal delivered at the station has to do with the question is in fixing the price at which the electricity is bought by the consumer. That is perfectly easily ascertained, and therefore there is no hardship that requires any provision of this sort to remove. So far as I know, there is no ground therefore for this Clause. So far as I know, every case of injurious affection, whether of a consumer or an undertaker, is protected. We have endeavoured to provide compensation, and, if there is any instance where we have failed, it can properly be brought up as an Amendment to some later Clause. A general Clause like this interfering with contracts without stronger grounds than any that my hon Friend has put forward is one which on behalf of the Government I am bound to resist.

Question put, and negatived.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next new Clause (Registration of Master or Employing Electrician), standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) deals with matters which are beyond the scope of the Bill.

CLAUSE 1.—(Appointment of Electricity Commissioners.)

(1) For promoting, regulating, and supervising the supply of electricity there shall be established as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, a body to be called the Electricity Commissioners, who shall have such powers and duties as are conferred on them by or under this Act, and, subject thereto, shall act under the general directions of the Board of Trade.
(3) Three of the Commissioners shall be whole-time officers.
(4) Three of the Commissioners shall be selected for practical, commercial, and scientific knowledge and wide business experience, including that of electrical supply.
(6) The Electricity Commissioners may appoint a secretary and such inspectors, officers and servants as the Commissioners may determine, and there shall be paid out of the fund hereinafter established to the Commissioners, and to the secretary, inspectors, officers, and servants of the Commissioners, such salaries and remuneration, and on retirement such pensions or gratuities as the Board of Trade may determine, and any expenses incurred by the Commissioners in the exercise and performance of their powers and duties under this Act, shall be defrayed out of the said fund.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words "three of."
Probably never before has the House appointed any body with bigger powers and more extensive control than the Electricity Commissioners to be established under this Bill. The Minister of Health has likened his powers under the Housing Act to those of an Oriental potentate, but the powers of the new Big Five under this Bill are infinitely greater than anything given to the Minister of Health. In discussing this question in Committee, the Home Secretary argued very forcibly in favour of three of the Commissioners being whole-time officials, and I respectfully submit that the excellent arguments that he gave then are equally as applicable to the five as to the three. He suggested that it was most important that these Commissioners should be absolutely impartial, without any axe of their own or of anybody else's to grind. He went on to say that in order to get this impartial body they should be whole-time officials, and he said that they would thus obtain a body
which would be free at any rate from the pulling of the strings of any particular class, power company, or municipal undertaking, which might desire some policy of their own. Those are very strong words, and I submit, if it be necessary for the reasons set forth by the Home Secretary that three of the Commissioners should be whole-time officials, in order that they may be entirely independent, with no axe to grind, and no interest other than the public weal, it is equally necessary whether the number be four or five.
The Home Secretary told us that it was suggested that three should be engineers, one a skilled financier, and another a trained Civil servant skilled in law and administration. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to which of these five he suggests that this restriction or limitation does not apply. It may be said that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent all of them being whole-time officers, but I submit that the House should go further than that, and should insist on all of them being whole-time officers and completely independent. Is it not necessary that the trained Civil servant should give the whole of his time? Is it suggested that the skilled financier, who has to weigh up the most delicate and complicated claims of various undertakings, should not be a whole-time officer free from outside influence? Of the engineers, we are told that one would be one who had experience in municipal government and undertakings, and another experienced in power companies. Surely both of them should be absolutely free, independent, unfettered, with no axe to grind, and therefore whole-time Commissioners? The third Commissioner would hold the balance between the other two, and there is therefore all the more reason that he should be a whole-time officer. I therefore ask the Home Secretary if he cannot see his way to accept this Amendment to indicate which two of the Commissioners should not be whole-time officials. In discussing the matter in Committee the Home Secretary suggested that he did not want to tie the hands of the Commissioners and the Minister of Transport in this particular matter, because circumstances might arise where it would be necessary to appoint someone who might not want to give his whole-time service. I submit that when special occasions like that arise specialists or experts can be called in without making them Commis-
sioners. The right hon. Gentleman can get the expert advice that is necessary on particular occasions without making anyone a Commissioner. I therefore submit that the arguments that the Home Secretary gave to the Committee in favour of making three whole-time officials in order that they might be entirely independent of outside influence and have no axe to grind applies equally to the whole five.

Amendment not seconded.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, after Sub-section (4), to insert
(5) A person shall be disqualified for being appointed or being a commissioner if he has, directly or indirectly, any share or interest in any undertaking for the supply of electricity, otherwise than as a ratepayer in the case of an undertaking of a local authority.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "electricity" ["supply of electricity"], to insert the words "or electrical plant."
8.0 P.M.
It will then provide that a person shall be disqualified from being a Commissioner if he has, directly or indirectly, any share or interest in any under-taking for the supply of electricity or electrical plant. I submit that if it is desirable to debar any Commissioner from having an interest in any undertaking concerned with the supply of electricity it is equally necessary to debar him having any interest in undertakings which are concerned with the supply of electrical plant. The principle underlying the one case is exactly the same in the other. If it is desirable that these officials should be absolutely disinterested and uninfluenced by any outside considerations it is desirable they should have no concern in a firm that might be supplying electrical plant or machinery which would necessarily be required by the various undertakings directed by the Electricity Commissioners. I hope the Home Secretary will be able to accept these or similar words.

Mr. NEAL: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Amendment, at any rate for the present. I cannot pretend to consider what the effect of these words would be, but it might very well be one which so differed from the proposal of the Amendment as it stands in my name as to involve almost a change of principle. Take, for
example, the case of a shareholder in some very big undertaking, a small portion of the work of which is concerned with electrical machinery. That small portion of the work might not make a difference of a half-farthing to his income, and it would be very hard if in such a case he were to be forced to sell out a good investment, the holding of which could not make the most suspicious person suspicious of him. That is one instance which occurs to me on the spur of the moment. If these words were inserted they might involve hardships of that description. It may be that the words "supply of electricity" are not sufficiently wide, and if the hon. Member has any suggestion to make in regard to that it might be possible to insert other words in another place, but I do not like to accept words of such far-reaching effect without much more consideration.

Mr. THOMSON: In view of the assurance I have received from the right hon. Gentleman, and bearing in mind the shortness of the notice, I will ask leave to withdraw my proposed Amendment to the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (6), after the word "Trade" ["the Board of Trade"], to insert the words "subject to the consent of the Treasury."
I think everybody wishes to try to ensure there shall be as much Treasury control as possible over the expenditure of the various Departments, and I hope, therefore, my right hon. Friend will be able to accept this Amendment. After all, we do not really know in the least what sum is involved here. Under this Clause the Electricity Commissioners are empowered to pay the secretary, inspectors, officers and servants of the Commission salaries and, on retirement, such pension or gratuities as the Board of Trade may determine. It is quite conceivable that these sums will total a very large amount, and there is nothing in the Bill or in the Financial Resolution passed the other day to indicate in the least what the amount will be. The Treasury is concerned in this Bill very deeply indeed. In Clause 19, Sub-section (2), the Treasury is practically concerned to the extent of £20,000,000 for
the construction of works and the acquisition of land. The Electricity Commissioners will have the handling of the money, but the Treasury has to find it. Again, if we turn to Clause 34, Sub-section (4), the; Board of Trade can lend £25,000,000 if the Electricity Commissioners cannot borrow on reasonable terms. That will have to be a Government guarantee, and thus it will be seen that the Treasury is concerned to the extent of £45,000,000 sterling in these two Clauses alone. The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, cannot say that the Treasury is not very deeply concerned in this measure. The Debates which have taken place in this House lately show, on the part of hon. Members on the Back Benches, a very keen desire that the Treasury should really have control over expenditure, and I am only suggesting that, when the Minister of Transport has made up his mind what shall be the payment in respect of salaries and pensions, he shall submit it to the Treasury and get their consent.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: The Treasury really are not in the slightest degree concerned in the particular payment. The matter does not interest them at all. The payments in regard to which this provision is made are the payments to be made by the Electricity Commissioners to their staff, and they are borne on the Electricity Commission expenses. If the revenues of the Commissioners are insufficient to meet those expenses, the deficit is not made good by the Treasury at all, or from any moneys voted by Parliament in any way whatever. It is provided by a levy on the trade itself, and Sub-section (2) of Clause 35 provides that the Commissioners shall apportion such deficit amongst the several district electricity boards, joint electricity authorities, and authorised undertakers within the United Kingdom in proportion to the number of units of electricity generated by or on behalf of those board's, authorities, and undertakers, respectively, in the preceding year. Provision, therefore, is made, where the expenses of the Electricity Commissioners are bigger than their revenue for collecting the deficit from the trade itself. It does not affect the Treasury in any way, and as far as the Minister in Charge of the Electricity Commission, who is responsible to Parliament, is concerned I hope my hon. Friend will agree that he
is really a quite sufficient safeguard although he is not safeguarding public money at all.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it quite clear that none of the money which is going to be advanced or guaranteed by the Treasury will go in payment of salaries or pensions?

Mr. SHORTT: None of it can go in payment of salaries or pensions. In the first two years the Commissioners might possibly have to borrow for working expenses, but it would be a very small portion of the amount that would be advanced—

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is my point.

Mr. SHORTT: It is absolutely a small matter, and, seeing that we are here dealing with the question for all time, it is hardly reasonable to say that simply because there might be a small debt which has to be paid off in two or three years, that is a reason why the Treasury should intefere for all time in the appointment of the staff.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: After what my right hon. Friend has said, I do not propose to press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 2.—(Exercise of Powers through Electricity Commissioners.)

The Board of Trade may exercise through the Electricity Commissioners any of their powers and duties under the Electric Lighting Acts or the Orders made thereunder or under any local Acts relating to the supply of electricity.

Amendments made: After the word "Orders," insert the words "or Regulations."

At the end of the Clause, add the words "or under any enactment relating to matters incidental to such supply."—[Mr. Shortt.]

CLAUSE 4.—(Power to Conduct Experiments.)

The Electricity Commissioners may, either by themselves or through any district electricity board or joint electricity authority established under this Act, or any authorised undertakers, or other competent body, conduct experiments or trials for the improvement of the methods of electric supply or of the utilisation of fuel, and, subject to the approval of the Board of Trade, incur such expenditure as may be necessary for the purpose.

Amendment made: At the end of the Clause, add the words "and the Commissioners shall take into consideration any representations which have been made to them by any such Committee."—[Mr. Shortt.]

CLAUSE 5.—(Constitution of District Electricity Boards.)

(1) The Electricity Commissioners may provisionally determine that any district in the United Kingdom shall be constituted a separate electricity district for the purposes of this Act, and in considering what areas are to be included in a, district, areas shall be grouped in such manner as may seem to the Commissioners most conducive to the efficiency and economy of the supply of electricity and to convenience of administration. Before finally determining the area, of any such district the Electricity Commissioners shall publish notice of their intention so to do and of the area proposed to be included in such district, and shall also give notice thereof to all local authorities and authorised undertakers any part of whose district or area of supply is proposed to be included in such district, and if any objection or representation be made on account of the inclusion in or the exclusion from the proposed district of any area the Electricity Commissioners shall hold a local inquiry with reference to the area to be included in the proposed district:
Provided that where a local inquiry is held as hereinafter provided regarding the improvement of the organisation for the supply of electricity in any district, the area of that district shall not be finally determined until after that inquiry has been held.
(2) Where it appears to the Electricity Commissioners with respect to any electricity district so provisionally determined that the existing organisation for the supply of electricity therein should be improved, the Commissioners shall give notice of their intention to hold a local inquiry into the matter, and shall give authorised undertakers, local authorities, railway companies using electricity for traction purposes, large consumers of electricity, and other associations or bodies within the district which appear to the Commissioners to be interested, an opportunity to submit, within such time as the Commissioners may allow, a scheme or schemes for effecting such improvement, including proposals for altering or adjusting the boundaries of the district and where necessary the formation of a joint electricity authority for the district.
(3) If no such scheme is submitted within the time so allowed, or if no scheme submitted is approved by the Commissioners, the Commissioners may themselves formulate such a scheme:
Provided that no scheme approved or formulated by the Commissioners shall provide for the transfer to the authority of any part of an undertaking other than the generating stations and main transmission lines except with the consent, of the owners thereof, and that unless otherwise agreed any transfer of such generating stations and main transmission lines shall be on the terms mentioned in Section seven of tins Act.
(6) A scheme under this Section may provide for the establishment of a joint electricity authority representative of authorised undertakers within the district, either with or without the addition of representatives of the council of any county situate wholly or partly within the district, other local authorities, large consumers of electricity, and other interests within the district, and, subject as hereinafter in this Act provided, for the exercise by that authority of all or any of the powers of the authorised under-
takers within the district, and for the transfer to the authority of the whole or any part of the undertakings of any of those undertakers, upon such terms as may be provided by the scheme, and for applying in relation to the joint electricity authority any of the provisions of this Act relating to district electricity boards (including the provisions as to borrowing, lending, and giving financial assistance by and to those boards), and the scheme may contain any consequential, incidental, and supplemental provisions which appear to be expedient or proper for the purpose of the scheme, including provisions dealing with any right of purchase of any undertakings affected by the scheme and provisions determining the area, included in the district.
(7) A scheme for the establishment of a district electricity board shall incorporate the board with power to hold land without licence in mortmain, and shall provide for the inclusion, as members of the board of representatives of local authorities, companies, and persons who are authorised undertakers within the district, of railway companies using or proposing to use electricity for traction purposes, of large consumers of electricity within the district, and of labour, and, where any councils (not being authorised undertakers) or the Electricity Commissioners agree to afford financial assistance to the board in manner provided by this Act, also of representatives of those councils or persons nominated by the Commissioners, and the members shall be appointed or elected in such manner, and shall hold office for such term, as may be provided by the Order.
The scheme may provide for enabling the board to delegate, with or without restrictions, to committees of the board any of the powers or duties of the board, and for the payment out of the revenues of the board of travelling and other expenses of members of the board (including compensation for loss of remunerative time).
(9) An Order made under this Section may be altered or revoked by a subsequent Order made, confirmed and approved in like manner as the original Order, and any such subsequent Order may provide for the dissolution of a joint electricity authority and the substitution therefor of a district electricity board.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (1), after the word "all" ["give notice thereof to all"], insert the words "county councils."

After the word "whose" ["any part of whose"], insert the word "county."

In Sub-section (2), after the word "undertakers" ["shall give authorised undertakers"], insert the words "county councils."

After the word "using" ["railway companies using"], insert the words "or proposing to use."

In Sub-section (3), leave out the words
Provided that no scheme approved or formulated by the Commissioners shall provide for the transfer to the authority of any part of an undertaking other than the generating stations and main transmission lines except with the consent of the owners thereof, and that unless otherwise
agreed any transfer of such generating stations and main transmission lines shall be on the terms mentioned in Section seven of this Act,

In Sub-section (6), after the word "establishment" ["provide for the establishment"], insert the words "and incorporation with power to hold land without licence in mortmain."—[Mr. Shortt.]

Mr. MALLALIEU: I beg to move, in Sub-section (6), after the word "district" ["undertakers within the district"], to insert the word "with."
My object is to include in the joint electricity authority the county council specifically by name. I have two other Amendments on the Paper immediately following which are consequential on this. This Subsection gives the right of representation on the joint electricity authority to any county council situated wholly or partly within the district, either with or without other local authorities. I move this on behalf of the County Councils' Association, who feel very deeply on this matter and who think it would be to the advantage of the proper working of the Bill when it becomes an Act if they are included in the authorities that are mentioned in this Sub-section as the joint electrical authority to be created.

Mr. RAFFAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: As I understand the Amendment, its object is to ensure that the county council may have a representative on any joint electricity authority or any Electricity Board, but that any other undertakers or local authorities shall only have a chance of being represented. A scheme under this Section may provide for the establishment of a joint electricity authority, representative of authorised undertakers within the district, with the addition of representatives of the council of any county situate wholly or partly within the district, and either with or without other local authorities, large consumers of electricity, and other interests within the district. That is the way I read the three Amendments. If that does not mean what I say, I do not know what it does mean. It means that there shall certainly be representatives of the council of any county. A great county borough in that county might not have representation, because it is to be "with or without them." Take the county of Northumberland, about which I know something. There are large districts there which must, have representation, but this is to be "either with or with-
out them." With or without great places like Newcastle or Wallsend! They are county boroughs, and the county council does not represent them in any way whatever. Take the case of Sheffield and other big centres. Sheffield or Leeds or Halifax, or any one of the big industrial centres in that county, are as much entitled to representation as of right, as the county council of the West Riding. I think the county council are perfectly properly treated if they have the same rights as other authorities—county borough councils and so on. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Viscount ELVEDEN: I beg to move, after the words "authorities" ["other local authorities"], to insert the words "railway companies using or proposing to use electricity for traction purposes."
I move this on behalf of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). It is a drafting Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: I do not think these words are necessary. One does not want to overload the measure with unnecessary words. If they are necessary we would accept them. The Sub-section says "with or without the addition of representatives of the council of any county situated wholly or partly in the district, other local authorities, large consumers of electricity, and other interests within the district." I should think that those words are clearly sufficient to include a railway using or proposing to use electricity for traction purposes. If you are dealing with generalities, as these are, and if you once specify one particular interest, it is always an argument that the others were intended to be excluded. That is the danger of putting words into an Act of Parliament which are unnecessary. It very often works hardship on other people. Unless the Mover of the Amendment can show me that the words in the Bill do not cover the point of his Amendment, I will ask him not to press it.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: At the end of Subsection (6), add the words
Provided that no such scheme shall provide for the transfer to the authority of any part of an undertaking other than a generating station or main transmission line except with the consent of the owners thereof and that unless otherwise agreed the price payable on the transfer of a generating station or main transmission line shall be the standard price hereinafter mentioned.

In Sub-section (7), after the word "of" ["representatives of"], insert the words "county councils of."—[Mr. Shortt.]

Mr. MALLALIEU: I beg to move, after the word "district" ["the district"], to insert the words "of the council of every county situate wholly or partly within the district."
These words are taken from the preceding Section, and might well come in here.

Mr. RAFFAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): The hon. Member will see that the point is covered by the Amendment just moved by the Home Secretary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: After the word "any" ["where any councils"], insert the words "borough or district.—[Mr. Shortt.]

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to move, after the word "Order" ["provided by the Order"], to insert the words "always provided that the representatives of the local authorities shall form a majority of the Board."
This Amendment raises probably one of the most important questions which this House will have to decide, because it is a question as to whether these new district boards which are to be set up are to be popularly elected, under democratic control, or whether they may be merely close co-operations, dominated by vested and private interests. It is a clear-cut issue as to whether you are to have on these boards the public interests or the private interests dominating. Under this Bill, when the District Electricity Commissioners have mapped out their districts, and where a joint electricity authority is not established, they will establish these district boards, and in these district boards will be vested the generating stations and the main transmission lines in that area. They will be compulsorily transferred and vested in these boards. It is of the utmost importance that on these boards, charged with such an important duty, there should be a majority of those who are popularly elected and representing public interests. We have heard of national service and public duty. These boards have monopoly rights and special privileges granted to them. They are financed with public money and they should be controlled in the public interest.
It has been suggested, when this or a similar proposal was resisted in Committee, that you should have no hard and fast rule in a matter of this sort. It is desirable in a case like this that we should have a hard and fast rule, established to the effect that these boards should be democratically controlled. We are asking for nothing new. The majority of the electricity undertakings throughout the country, as set forth by the Williamson Report, are now in the hands of local authorities and are under public control. There were altogether in 1916, 557 various undertakers, and of these 230 were in the hands of private companies, representing £36,000,000 of capital, and 327 were in the hands of local authorities, representing £55,000.000 of capital. Therefore you have by far the bigger proportion of the electrical undertakings of this country already under popular control and democratically managed. On the figures and returns given to the Board of Trade the service that these popularly elected and controlled undertakings are giving is as efficient and as cheap as any given by any other undertaking. Therefore it is not a question of asking for anything new that these undertakings should be in the hands of popularly controlled bodies, but rather the principle of the Bill as it now stands is most reactionary. You are taking it-out of the hands of the authorities which are democratically controlled and it may be put into the hands of the new boards which the Bill is setting up on which there may be a majority of private and other interests.
In these days one ought not to have to apologise for asking the House to maintain democratic control in matters of public service. Where public money is expended, where monopoly rights are enjoyed and public duties are enjoined, you should have popular control. It has been said, and will be said again, that you have the control of this House exercised through the Board of Trade. But hon. Members know from their practical experience that such control is more in the imagination than in reality. This House exercises no effective control through the Board of Trade on boards which may be established up and down the country. Moreover, in so far as you have control through the Board of Trade, or the Ministry of Transport, which is probably one stage worse than we were before, you have it over private power
companies and various private undertakings, and such control as is required in their case is not sufficient. We require more control when public money has been spent. Therefore it is essential that this new scheme which we are establishing should be in the hands of a body that has a majority of popular representatives. It may be said, "Take a district where you had a majority of private undertakings and where a district board is set up. Are you going to suggest that on that district board you shall also have a majority of popular representatives?" It should be so, but it is not suggested that local authorities who are now undertakers should be represented on the new boards. I do not put that forward for a moment. The local authority which has been the undertaker has been bought out. It has been paid for its undertakings and it has no longer any claim to control. But it is the larger principle that where public money is expended, where a monopoly right is given, and where public duties are enjoined, it should be in the hands of a popularly-elected board, not became the undertaker was previously the local authority or a private company that these private companies or these localities have any claim to representation. They have been bought out by the Bill, and their claims have been satisfied, and it is as if you were starting anew; and if you were starting anew to establish electrical undertakings with public money and monopoly rights, they should all be established on a broad, democratic basis of popular control.
We are all anxious that the Bill should be a success, and if it is to be a success you want to have the confidence of the public and of the various undertakings behind it, and you will get public confidence infinitely more if you admit this democratic principle and it is not felt that public-money is being expended and handed over to a board upon which vested interests may possibly have a majority. It has been, said by enemies of the House—I do not think correctly—that this is a capitalist Parliament; more concerned with private interests than with the public weal. I appeal to the Government to demonstrate that there is no truth in that assertion by accepting an Amendment to establish the right that these district boards, charged with a public duty, taking over controls which have been paid for by public money, should be controlled, so far as the majority of the representatives are concerned, by
those who represent the public in one form or another. It is not suggested that every undertaker should be represented, but by means of electoral colleges, as was foreshadowed in the Williamson Report, you should have a measure of public control of what is a public undertaking.

Mr. RAFFAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
It seems to me that this strikes at the root of the whole matter. If this scheme is to be a success it requires to secure the confidence of those who are served in the various areas. In no way can that be better secured than by seeing that on every board there is not merely a represntation of the various local authorities, but that those representatives form a majority. We submitted this proposal upstairs, and it was resisted, to the best of my recollection not with great strength or vigour. I think the right hon. Gentleman would be wise to make a concession. We are not wedded to particular phraseology, and if we could be met on the principle, I am quite sure my hon. Friend would be quite pleased to accept any other form of words carrying out the idea which the right hon. Gentleman might suggest.

Mr. SHORTT: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. I did not oppose this with very great vigour, because no great vigour was necessary. Upstairs, as is the case here to-night, my hon. Friend (Mr. Thomson) really answered himself. It is true he began his answer by saying, "No doubt I shall be told," but having told us what he was going to be told, he answered himself completely, and there was nothing left for me to say. The effect of this would be to tie the hands of the Commissioners and of local people in forming the joint electricity authority. In some cases it might lead to an added confidence that there should be a majority of representatives of local authorities; in other cases it might not. There may be cases where the local authorities have taken very little interest and have not been themselves undertakers or large purchasers; and if they were not to have the advantage of having those who were intimately connected with electricity, whose whole existence was bound up with it, there might not be the same confidence. The whole principle upon which the structure is built is that there should be a perfectly free hand, each district should be settled by its own circumstances, and those who set up the district authority should have their hands tied as little as
possible They do not depend entirely in this matter on the supervision of the Ministry of Transport. A district electricity board is set up by an Order, and the kind of Order which is necessary under this Clause is one which requires to be laid on the Table of the House and requires an affirmative Resolution before it comes into operation. Therefore no Order can come into existence or operation until it has been before this House. Therefore it is not a question of the responsibility to Parliament of the Minister of Transport, but the House has full control of the scheme set up, and if it thinks that insufficient representation is given to anyone the matter can be raised on the floor of the House and possibly beaten on the floor of the House. Therefore I hope the House will take the same view as the Committee upstairs.

Mr. NEAL: I am extremely sorry that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough has proposed this Amendment. If one had heard his speech only, and had not known the contents of the Bill, one would have been convinced, but the smallest examination of the contents of the Bill disposes of all his arguments. I cannot imagine a more democratic scheme than that which is now set up. By Clause 5 of the Bill, before a governing authority of the district is constituted, first there has to be a local inquiry at which everyone concerned is to be heard; second, there is an opportunity given for agreement between the various undertakers in the district to form a joint Electricity Board under a scheme of their own with the approval of the Ministry of Transport. If they fail to do that then you come as a last resort to the district board, and on that district-board there is specific provision for the inclusion as members of the board of representatives of local authorities, companies, and persons who are authorised under it. If you consider the various districts into which England may be mapped out, you find some districts wholly municipally supplied. Obviously, to introduce there any private interest would be a fault.
But you get some districts where they are wholly supplied by authorised undertakers other than municipalities. The proposal is that those districts which have not got municipal interests in them now, municipalites which have never established a single station or undertaking, are necessarily to be controlled by the majority of representatives of local authorities who have had no experience whatever in the
development and management of electricity. At present they are to have representation on it as representing the public; they may even get a majority under the scheme, but to say that they must have a majority is altogether wrong There is no ground at all for saying that in a case of this description we are violating the principle of spending public money by people who are not under public control. The fact is that the great weakness of the Bill is that there is no public money in it. When we come to another stage of the Bill I hope to say a few words on that aspect. Meantime I trust that the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

Major BARNES: We have just heard a very interesting speech from the hon. Member for Hillsborough. There is no man in this House who has more facility for putting a case in an attractive and convincing way, but on this occasion he has missed the real point of the Amendment. The issue raised is really a very much larger issue than that which has been dealt with by the hon. and learned Member. The position which my hon. Friend puts forward, and which I support, aims at securing that this great service shall be regarded as a public service, to be under public control and shall not be looked on in any sense as a field devoted to the play of private interests. That view is in accord with the view that has been held by this House and the country for a considerable time. With the exception of the power companies the whole of the electric service of this country is carried on under Provisional Orders, based upon the Electric Lighting Acts of 1882 and 1888. When these Acts were passed it was clearly contemplated that the time would come, and at no distant date, when the services under private control should become a public service under public control. The Act of 1882 provided that at the end of a period of twenty-one years local authorities might have the right to purchase. That was found not to be long enough, and later on it was extended to forty-two years. All over the country there has been an expectation, a proper expectation on the part of local authorities that at the expiration of that period they would come into control of this service. As regards most of the country, that period is rapidly approaching. Within from seven to ten years most of the Orders will have expired, and local authorities throughout the
country in the vast majority of cases were anxious, and rightly anxious, to come into possession of these undertakings.
Now Parliament has intervened, correctly I think and with good reason, and is taking a course which is going to defeat that expectation. The supply and control of electricity in the bulk is no longer going to be a matter for the local authorities in their respective areas. The opinion of the Government is that the local authorities cannot remain in their respective areas in charge of this great service. We think that this occasion should not be used by the Government for defeating the legitimate expectation on the part of the local authorities, and that those authorities should not be placed in the position of seeing, not only those undertakings which they hoped to acquire, but undertakings which they have now in their possession, taken out of their hands and placed under the control of boards which may have upon them preponderating private interests. That is retrograde action. If the Government had pursued the right policy they would boldly have set up these boards as district or provincial boards under public control, spending public money and providing a public service. It has been impossible in Committee to get that. What we are trying to secure now is that, while from these boards there shall not be excluded altogether persons having private interests in the distribution of electricity, yet at least the majority of the membership, and ultimately, if need be, the control of these boards shall be in the hands of the public acting through the local authorities. It does not interfere with the administration of the service. It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Hills-borough (Mr. Neal) that the effect of this Bill in some parts of the country would be to place upon the board people who have no experience at all in managing a concern of this sort. We have had an illustration in this House to-day of a Minister placed in charge of the whole electrical undertaking who confessed at the Table, freely and unreservedly, that he was not able to enter into a technical controversy on the Bill. But I do not think any Member of the House would suggest for a moment that the fact, that the Minister has not this technical knowledge is a disqualification for the important position he holds. It is perfectly well known that for technical knowledge and business administration these boards depend very largely upon their technical and commer-
cial staffs. What we need to secure is not men with actual technical knowledge of the industry, but men of sound common sense in the administration of affairs, and men who have the public interest at heart. That we believe is best secured—we do not say perfectly secured—through the local authorities. Our proposal is

moderate; it is in keeping with the times; and it will ensure that this great public service shall be really under public control.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 54; Noes, 153.

Division No. 134.]
AYES.
[8.53 p.m.


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Guest, J. (Hemsworth, York)
Royce, William stapleton


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)
Short, A. (Wednesbury)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hartshorn, V.
Sitch, C. H.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Hayday, A.
Smith, W. (Wellingborough)


Bromfield, W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Spencer, George A.


Cairns, John
Hirst, G. H.
Surtees, Brig.-General H. C.


Cape, Tom
Irving, Dan
Swan, J. E. C.


Carter, W. (Mansfield)
Jephcott, A. R.
Taylor, J. (Dumbarton)


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


clynes, Rt. Hon John R.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thorne, G. R (Wolverhampton)


Cood, Sir Cyrn
Lunn, William
Thorne, Colonel w. (Plaistow)


Davies, Alfred (Clitheroe)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Waterson, A. E.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Martin, A. E.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Edwards, C. (Bedwellty)
O'Connor, T. P.
Wignall, James


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Remer, J. B.



Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mr.


Gray, Major E.
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)
T. Thomson and Mr. Raffan.


Grundy, T. W.
Robertson, J.



NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.


Atkey, A. R.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Murray, John (Leeds, w.)


Baird, John Lawrence
Goff, Sir R. Park
Murray, William (Dumfries)


Baldwin, Stanley
Gould, J. C.
Nall, Major Joseph


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greame, Major P. Lioyd
Neal, Arthur


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Green, J. F. (Leicester)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)


Bell, Lt.-Col. w. c. H. (Devizes)
Greenwood, Col. Sir Hamar
Nield, Sir Herbert


Betterton, H. B.
Gregory, Holman
Oman, C. W. C.


Bigland, Alfred
Griggs, Sir Peter
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Birchall, Major J. D.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (Leic., Loughboro')
Pearce, Sir William


Bird, Alfred
Hacking, Colonel D. H.
Perkins, Walter Frank


Blair, Major Reginald
Hall, Lt.-Col. Sir Fred (Dulwich)
Perring, William George


Borwick, Major G, O.
Henderson, Maj. V. L. (Tradeston, Glas)
Pollock, Sir Ernest Murray


Breese, Major C. E.
Herbert, Denniss (Hertford)
Pownall, Lt.-Colonel Assheton


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hilder, Lieut-Colonel- F.
Pratt, John William


Bruton, Sir J.
Hood, Joseph
Preston, W. R.


Buckley, Lt.-Colonel A.
Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Bull, Right Hon. Sir William James
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Purchase, H. G.


Burdon, Cot. Rowland
Hudson, R. M.
Ramsden, G. T.


Campbell, J. G. D.
Hughes, Spencer Leigh
Rankin, Capt. James S.


Carr, W. T.
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Ratcliffe, Henry Butler


Chadwick, R. Burton
Hurd, P. A.
Renwlck, G.


Colvin, Brig.-General R. B.
Hurst, Major G. B.
Richardson, Alex. (Gravesend)


Coote, Colin R. (Isle of Ely)
Inskip, T. W. H.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Cory, Sir James Herbert (Cardiff)
Jesson, C.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Jodrell, N. P.
Royden, Sir Thomas


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Johnson, L. S.
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen)
Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur


Davies, Sir D. S. (Denbigh)
Kerr-Smiley, Major P.
Sassoon, Sir Philip A. G. D.


Davies, T. (Cirencester)
King, Commander Douglas
Seager, Sir William


Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)
Knights, Captain H.
Seddon, James


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Dean, Com. P. T.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T., W.)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lewis, T. A. (pontypridd, Glam.)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston)


Edge, Captain William
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Stanton, Charles Butt


Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark)
Lioyd, George Butler
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Elveden, Viscount
Lorden, John William
Sturrock, J. Leng-


Eyres-Monsell, Commander
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Sugden, Lieut. W. H.


Falcon, Captain M.
Lynn, R. J.
Sutherland, Sir William


Fell, Sir Arthur
M'Curdy, Charles Albert
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
M'Donald, Dr. B. F. P. (Wallasey)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (M'yhl)


Forrest, W.
Macquisten, F. A.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Foxcroft, Captain C.
Magnus, Sir Philip
Wallace, J.


Gange, E. S.
Mason, Robert
Ward. Col. J. (Stoke, Trent)


Ganzoni, Captain F. C.
Matthews, David
Ward, Colonel L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir A. C. (Basingstoke)
Mitchell, William Lane
Wardie, George J.


Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Cambridge)
Moles, Thomas
Waring, Major Walter


White, Colonel G. D. (Southport)
Winterton, Major Earl
Young, Lt.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Whitla, Sir William
Worsfold, T. Cata



Wild, Sir Ernest Edward
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E.


Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)

Talbot and Mr. J. Parker


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (7), to leave out the word "other" ["and other expenses"], and to insert instead thereof the word "subsistence."
I must apologise for moving any Amendments, as I was not a member of the Committee, but I look upon this from the point of view of controlling expenditure, and I feel it is very necessary to put some limit on the expenses which are going to be allowed to the members of the district boards. When the Ministry of Health Bill was first introduced it contained a provision that the consultative councils should be paid travelling and other expenses, but the Committee upstairs, without a Division, insisted that the expenses should be restricted to travelling and subsistence allowance and to reasonable compensation for loss of remunerative time. That provision is contained in Section 6, Sub-section (3), of the Ministry of Health Act. I think that is a very good precedent. What other expenses besides travelling and subsistence and compensation for loss of remunerative time can be contemplated? The word "other" is too wide, and might mean, for instance, clothing or any other kind of expenses.

Major BARNES: I beg to second the Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment, as it will mean that working-class members of these bodies will not be able to be paid for time lost.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is not so, because that would be covered by the words "including compenstion for loss of remunerative time."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I apologise.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My only objection to the Amendment is that it ought to have a subsequent Amendment making the last line read "including reasonable compensation for loss of remunerative time." If you put in "subsistence" without that, it would be inconsistent, but if you add those words I shall have no objection.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I will gladly accept the hon. Member's suggestion.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, in Sub-section (7), after the word "board" ["expenses of members of the board"], to leave out the word "including," and to insert instead thereof the words "and reasonable."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do I understand: that compensation for loss of remunerative time is to be the same whatever the employment of the man may be, or is it to vary according to whether a man is a labourer, or an engineer, or a capitalist? I think we are throwing ourselves open to considerable differentiation, which might cause much heartburning, and I should prefer to see an all-round payment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (7), to-insert the words, "Provided that the scale-of any such payments shall have received the approval of the Minister of Transport."
I shall be glad if the Government will accept this, but I shall not press it.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not think this is necessary. They will receive the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, and I think that is quite sufficient.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I beg lo move, in Subsection (9), to leave out the words "or revoked."
I should like to call attention at the same time to the next Amendment in my name, which is to leave out the words
and any such subsequent Order may provide for the dissolution of a joint electricity authority and the substitution therefor of a district electricity board.
The object I have in moving this may be very briefly explained. The point is that any Order made by the authorities should be subject to alteration, but that it shall not be possible to dissolve a joint authority and to set up a district board in its place. I think the majority of the Members present are familiar with the proceedings upstairs, and they, at any rate, will remember, and the members of the Government will remember, that the great alteration which was made in this Bill in Committee was to alter the balance between the district board and the joint electricity authority. As the Bill left this House after
the Second Reading, the substantive authority which was to be set up was the district board, but by the concurrence of all parties, and not least by the active concurrence of the Government itself, while we were upstairs, the balance of the Bill was so far altered that the district board receded relatively into the background and the joint authority came into the foreground. I appeal to the hon. Members present to say if that was not the great alteration made in the Bill upstairs. If a joint authority is set up, the authorised undertakers included in that joint authority may have to transfer their generating stations to the authority so set up. They will have to work their undertakings in some joint or co-operative way and will have all the conditions of their business so altered by joint working that they will lose in greater or less measure their separate identities, and it will be impossible after a few years to say what is the separate undertaking of each. Now let us suppose that an Order is made revoking the original Order, dissolving a joint authority, and setting up in its place a district board. What then will be the position of the separate undertakers who have been merged in that authority? I submit that the position of those undertakers will be exceedingly difficult, and I ask the House to observe what will happen. They would already have parted with their generating stations, with their main transmission lines, and so on, to the joint authority, so that when the district board is set up and stations vest in the district board the separate undertakers cannot exercise the option which is given to them under Clause 12 of this Bill to surrender the undertakings. That is really the pith and the point of this Amendment. When this operation has taken place, it will be impracticable to do what the Bill contemplates should be done. It will be impracticable to reestablish the conditions existing before the authority was set up.
Allow me to put this point to the House and the Government. If this possibility of revocation is retained in the Bill, it will be very difficult to get authorised undertakers to unite in the formation of joint authorities. Does the Government want that to take place or not? By the whole presupposition of your Bill you do want it. You want to do everything in your power to bring these people, in a friendly co-operative way, to unite in joint authorities. That is the object of your
Bill. Your Bill will not work if you do not get it. I say that, unless my Amendment be accepted, it will be very difficult—it will be almost impossible—to get these authorised undertakers to unite in the formation of joint authorities, for two reasons. In the first place, because they have no security that the arrangement made will be allowed to continue for any definite time or term of years; and, in the-second place, because if the arrangements made are upset, or are to be upset, by revocation—that is the point of my Amendment—and dissolution, they will have no stations to sell under Clause 7, and they will have no opportunity of selling the remainder of their undertaking under Clause 12, Sub-section (4). What will be the result? They will be worse off than if they had a district board formed at the outset.
The whole point of the Amendments carried upstairs is to say that they shall be in a better position than that. But, unless the Government and the House are willing to accept the Amendment which I am now proposing, the whole presupposition of this Bill will be upset, and, although it may appear a point of minor importance, really the point is a vital one to the whole structure of the Bill. The uncertainty of the danger introduced by Sub-section (9) as it stands at present will, I submit, be so great as to form a very powerful discouragement to the organisation of these very joint authorities which you desire to set up, and will go a very long way to defeat the intentions of the Government and the intentions of the Standing Committee in altering this Clause so as to permit of the formation of joint, authorities. Yet there is not a Member of this House who has followed the Bill or a member of the Committee upstairs, I venture to say, who does not agree, and the Government themselves agree, that the formation of these joint authorities is one of the great improvements introduced in the Bill. It is, of course, admitted that experience may show that an original Order may in course of time need alteration. It is not against alteration that I am arguing this Amendment. I fully admit that as time goes on, as the working of these schemes is developed, as you gain experience, that experience may demonstrate that an original Order does need alteration. We are not out against that at all. Some members of a newly-constituted authority may be obstructive—I will not say it is likely—or they may
be quarrelsome or even apathetic. They may not have followed this Bill more closely than some members of the Government have followed it, and it may be necessary to vary the relative weight of representation of the different interests on the joint authority. I recognise that danger, and therefore, as I am whole-heartedly and fundamentally in favour of the general principle of this Bill, I say that I have no objection at all to your altering these matters, but the Sub-section as I propose to amend it leaves the power of alteration. This, I venture to submit, will give the Commissioners all the power they need to call to order any negligent authority or any undertakers forming part of a joint authority. I hope the Amendment, which I have now the honour to commend to the House, may receive the very favourable attention of the Government.

Sir F. HALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think my hon. Friend has put the matter exceedingly clearly before the House. I can quite understand that, arrangement having been made for joint authorities, it would be of great Advantage, but if, for instance, there is going to be hanging over the heads of these joint authorities the possibility in two, three, or four or five years' time that that may be revoked, and the local electricity board take it over, then I do not think the desires that have been put forward are likely to be carried out. It was advocated very strongly upstairs that these joint authorities should have a fair chance of success. It was a proposition of the Government that there should be these joint authorities. Now on the one hand they say, "You may make your partnership arrangements, set your house in order and start along properly," and, on the other hand they say, "But be careful, because perhaps in a few years' time we shall revoke the authority we have given." Does a man in the ordinary course enter into a business if he thinks that after he has started and has got into deep water there is a clause in the agreement by which the business can be summarily finished? I cannot think that the Government are going to oppose this Amendment. It is against all common business principles to expect that these undertakings are going to dispose of the properties they have today, cut off their generating stations and then have these things taken over from the
joint electricity authority and thrown into a district electricity board. What would they have to dispose of afterwards? Nothing. If their generating stations and main transmission lines are taken, all that is left is débris. What will be given for a part of an undertaking which cannot be worked? If the Government do net accept this Amendment I trust my hon. Friend will press it to a Division, and if he does so, I shall certainly support him.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think there is some amount of substance in the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Oxford. At the same time I feel great difficulty in will agree not to move his second Amendments as they stand together.

Mr. MARRIOTT: Will the hon. Gentleman accept the first one to leave out the words "or revoked."

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: If my hon. Friend will agree not to move his second Amendment and will confine it to leaving out the words "or revoked," the Government would be prepared to agree to that, but we could not agree to the two Amendments making it impossible ever to supplant a joint authority that had not been doing its duty.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman say what course the Government propose to take with regard to the second Amendment? There is a certain amount of substance in it. I contend that the Commissioners already have power to deal with this matter without the matter being taken further. What does the hon. Gentleman propose to do?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I propose to the hon. Member for Oxford that he should accept our agreement on the first Amendment and not move the second.

Sir F. HALL: I hope that the hon. Member for Oxford will insist on his first Amendment and will then let us have a discussion on the other point. I am not prepared to accept the decision of the Government. We might be able to come to some arrangement afterwards with regard to the second Amendment.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: That would be entirely opposed to what I have suggested.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): There are two separate Amendments. We had better deal with the first and then come to the second.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not think we are agreed on the first Amendment. If the second part is not accepted, I hope the Government will stand to the words "or revoked," otherwise they whittle down enormously their powers under the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Oxford move the second Amendment?

Mr. MARRIOTT: Yes, Sir. I beg to move, in Sub-section (9), to leave out the words "and any such subsequent Order may provide for the dissolution of a joint electricity authority and the substitution therefor of a district electricity board."
I feel bound simply to move the second Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir F. HALL: I hope that the hon. Gentleman who represents the Government, if he cannot accept this Amendment as it stands will suggest amended words which he can accept. The Government say they will not revoke the Order, but that at some subsequent time they should have the opportunity of coming in and dissolving the joint electricity authority and substituting for it a district electricity board. The Amendment we have just agreed to is of little or no use by itself. What does it mean if you say you will not revoke an Order, but that at some later date you reserve to yourselves the right of putting these people in a position which was not anticipated at the time they entered into a joint electricity scheme? That is exactly the position. The Government want these joint authorities, and said so upstairs. There has been no difference of opinion on that point. For goodness sake, if you want to assist them, do not put the brake on them directly. Do not say that the horses are to go full speed ahead—I believe the Minister of Transport is going to send everything full speed ahead—and then say, "Now we are going to put the brake on and stop you." That is what will happen if these words are left in.

Major GREAME: Those who have not followed the details of the proceedings on this Bill in the Committee are a little muddled in regard to this matter. What I am not quite clear about from the speeches which were made on the last Amendment or from the answer given from the Treasury Bench is this: It is quite clear to the House that the Government
could not give to a joint electricity authority carte blanche for ever, I strongly support the idea of joint electricity authorities, because I feel that State interference ought to come in as a last resort. Supposing a joint electricity authority is-inefficient, are the people who have gone into that joint electricity authority in any worse position if, at a subsequent date, they are converted into a district electricity board? Some people say that they will not be able to take advantage of Clause 12. If that is so, surely they ought to be put in the same position and to have the same rights at the date when the joint electricity authority is converted into a district electricity board as they would have in the first instance where there is a conversion of a number of companies into a district electricity board. If the hon. Gentleman could assure us that there is no distinction, or that the position will be properly safeguarded, that would meet the general sense of the House.

Mr. NEAL: Perhaps I may say to my hon. Friends around me that their fears in this matter are not really so serious as they appear to them. Under the joint electricity authority there need be no transfer of property at all from the original undertakers. That is the fundamental difference between the joint electricity authority and the district board. The first opportunity which is given to the undertakers in this Bill is to become co-operators under the scheme. That scheme may provide for the transfer, on terms, of the power station involved and the main transmission lines. If it does so provide, then it follows on that that the terms under which the generating stations and the main transmission lines are taken over will have been mutually agreed between the parties, and they will be content, as one may assume, with the bargain made. It is not to be assumed that the Government would force upon them a scheme which they were not willing to adopt. Therefore you can look at the matter from two points of view—If I may presume to answer the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last. Either the undertaker is still in possession of his power station and his main transmission lines, in which case he has the whole of his undertaking which may be transferred to the district board, or he has already sold his interest in his power station and main transmission lines to the joint electricity authority, in which case he has no ground for complaint.
Under what conditions and circumstances can the powers which the Government seek in this Clause come to be operative and effective? The joint electricity board might itself desire a dissolution of the partnership. It may very well turn out that experience dictated that the very persons who had been quite content to join in the joint electricity authority might themselves ultimately come to the Electricity Commissioners and say, having regard to all the circumstances, we think we made a mistake; the best thing that can be done for our district is to put an end to the joint electricity board and have a different régime. If you take these words out, as is proposed by this Amendment, that could not be done even by consent. Under what circumstances would the Electricity Commissioners be likely to interfere with the joint electricity authority that once was established? Of course, if it turned out that the joint electricity authority felt that they had a plain duty imposed upon them by Statute, and the scheme, then, everyone in the House will agree that they should be superseded. Assume the other side of the question: that they are working out their business in a way intended for the national production—national, perhaps, is too large a word—but for enlarged production of electricity for the district. If they are carrying on their business, under terms, it is impossible to conceive that the Commissioners would wish arbitrarily to interfere with them,
Suppose the Commissioners were so foolish as to desire to upset the existing state of things which was being worked smoothly and naturally in the district, what machinery would they have to bring into play? They must go back over the whole of the tracks which they had to travel in setting up the joint electricity authority. They must hold their local inquiry. Everybody interested would have the chance of being heard. They must then propound a new scheme, or an alteration of the old scheme. They must then submit that to the Minister of Transport. The latter must assent, and must be responsible, on his authority as Minister, for bringing it to Parliament. There must be an affirmative vote of both Houses before it takes effect. Is there any bogey that we need be afraid of?

Mr. G. BALFOUR: It does not very much matter whether this Amendment is
accepted or not. Probably in Clause 28 there are ample powers allowing the Commissioners to give effect to the purposes they seek to give effect to by retaining in the Sub-section the power of revocation. I think, perhaps, if the Parliamentary Secretary would refer to the powers in Clause 28 he would then feel that he is running no risk in limiting the powers of the Electricity Commissioners by accepting an Amendment of that part of the Clause.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I think the points have been perfectly answered by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough. My hon. Friend is perfectly alive to the situation.

Mr. MARRIOTT: I am a little doubtful on this point. I am bound to say, as it appears to me, my second Amendment was really consequential on my first. The Government has met us very handsomely in this matter, and I would desire to acknowledge it to the Under-Secretary. But I should like, before this matter is finally disposed of, if he would be good enough to say how my second Amendment falls short of being consequential to my first?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I thought I pointed out that if these words are left out we should have no opportunity or power for getting an inefficient electricity authority out of the way. That is why we want, these words in.

Mr. BALFOUR: The point that has been put, and which I have endeavoured to help to solve by the words I used a few, moments ago, might, perhaps, between now and this Bill going to another place, be considered. If these words were left out, as suggested in the Amendment, is not the position fully covered in Clause 28?

Amendment negatived.

Sir F. HALL: I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (9), to add the words, "if so desired by the joint electricity authority or they neglect to carry out their obligations satisfactorily."
Two objections have been raised. If the joint authority does not carry out its work satisfactorily, or if it is negligent in regard to its obligations, certainly it ought to be done away with. On the other hand it is quite within the range of possibility that some of these joint electricity authorities may wish to dissolve themselves, and if they had these words in the Clause the
objections on both those scores would be met. I cannot see any reason for declining to accept this Amendment.

Major GREAME: I beg to second this Amendment. We want these joint authorities to come into existence, and I think there ought to be some assurance that they will not be superseded if they do their duty.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot imagine any circumstances which would lead to such a change as thin except those mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not really think that these words are necessary, and I do not think that the Electricity Commissioners will exercise any unfair powers.

Sir F. HALL: My Amendment is only to get over the two objections that have been raised, and I hope it will be accepted.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 7.—(Acquisition of Generating Stations.)

(1) As from such date or dates as may be specified in the Order constituting a district electricity board, all generating stations then existing within the district, other than railway generating stations, dock generating stations, and private generating stations, and such main transmission Hues as may be specified in the Order, oilier than main transmission lines belonging or leased to railway companies, shall by virtue of this Act vest in the district electricity board, subject to the payment by the board to the owners thereof of the standard price, but freed and discharged from all mortgages and other charges to which the same may be subject, and the proviso to Section seventy-eight of the Schedule to the Electric Lighting (Clauses) Act, 1899, shall apply as if the generating stations or main transmission lines had been sold under Section two of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888.

Mr. GRUNDY: I beg to move, in Subsection (1) to leave out the words "railway generating stations, dock generating stations, and." I desire to thank the Home Secretary for his acceptance of our Amendment.

Mr. SHORTT: I hope this Amendment will not be pressed now, and instead of proceeding with this Amendment I beg to move "That the Debate be now adjourned." When the Bill was before the Committee, and during the period of the summer before the Recess, my advisers and I had to consider the position of railway companies and we did so in consultation with those hon. Members who understood railway matters, and were responsible for speaking for them. Let me say, quite-frankly, the position with regard to railway companies was one which I, per-
sonally, on behalf of the Government agreed to, and I am quite responsible for having agreed to it. Subsequent reflection has made it not quite so clear whether the arrangement I made was a wise one. I had been advised that, no matter who had control of the electricity, the railway generating stations coud not be of any value to the scheme. I was advised that it was necessary to keep the right-of-way leaves over the railway lines, and that we did. But I had been advised that the railway generating stations—

Sir F. BANBURY: That is not so.

Mr. SHORTT: Indeed, it is exactly as I have stated. I therefore made the arrangement that I did. It has been suggested that it is not a wise arrangement. I have, therefore, put down these Amendments, not because I desire to go back in any way upon my arrangement, or to deny that I made it, or anything of that sort, but purely for the purpose of the reconsideration of the matter. I do not think that we can reconsider it tonight. We ought to discuss it when those who are competent to speak on behalf of the railway companies are here. Therefore, having regard to that position, I would ask my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment, and to allow me, instead of moving my Amendment, to move to adjourn the Debate.

Mr. SPEAKER: I had already proposed the Question on the Amendment. I will, therefore, now put the Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is rather unusual, when a Minister has an Amendment upon the Paper, for him to get up at the last moment and want to withdraw it and ask to move the Adjournment of the Debate, simply because the railway directors are not in the House. All the other Members interested are here, and are anxious to press their case, but because the railway directors are only represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), the Debate is to be adjourned in order that the Government may make out a case for withdrawing their Amendments. I protest that that is not treating the House fairly. We have been here all day waiting for this Amendment, and now, when we have reached it and we withdraw our Amendment in order to accept that of the Government, the Home Secretary moves to adjourn the Debate, He tells us
that this is an important question, but so are a great many other questions that have been discussed to-day. It is a concession to the pressure which has been brought to bear upon the Government by the railway companies, and it is illustrated by the withdrawal of the Home Secretary's Amendment.

10.0 P.M.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will reconsider what he has said when I tell him what exactly has taken place. It is not a question of any pressure. It is not a question of the railway directors not being here. Here is one railway director, there is another, and there is a third. Therefore the first statement of my hon. and gallant Friend is incorrect. So is his second statement; and I am perfectly certain that he will be on my side when I tell him what has taken place. Some weeks or months ago the Board of Trade had an interview with the representatives of the railway companies. Sir John Snell, who is a permanent member of the Board of Trade, made an arrangement with the railway companies. That arrangement resulted in an Amendment being moved in the Committee upstairs, and it was accepted by the Government as an agreed Amendment. Not only was that accepted by the Government as an agreed Amendment, but two other Amendments which were made under the same circumstances with the Board of Trade were also accepted by the Government in Committee as agreed Amendments. To-day, for the first time, Amendments appear on the Paper altering the agreement, which had been entered into not only with the Board of Trade, but also with the Committee, and which the Government had accepted in Committee.
I know perfectly well that my hon. and gallant Friend will agree with me when I say that during all his experience in this House and during all mine, the thing that all parties have agreed upon is that an agreement made must be maintained. It is no use coining down and saying that it was not a wise agreement. I am surprised that the Home Secretary should come down and say, after having made it, that he does not think it a wise agreement. When two people make a bargain, one of them is sure to get a little the better of the other. If I make an agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend and I find that he has got the better of me, as he
would, that is no excuse for me saying that I have not been wise and that I am going to break the agreement. That is the position, and I am rather sorry, because we cannot get over the fact that the Government did put down these Amendments, which were a distinct breach of faith. I make that charge deliberately, and though, of course, the Government have admitted, a little tardily, that what I say is correct, I am not at all sure that the way to meet it is to adjourn the Debate. In the old days of this House if any member of any Government had realised what he had done, he would have said, "I am sorry, I was mistaken, but I did make a bargain, and that bargain I am going to keep." We are really entering upon a very serious innovation in the experience of Parliament. All Members of the House know that for very many years I made practically all the arrangements between the Conservative party and the Liberal party. On only two occasions did I ever know any attempt to break those arrangements. One occasion—I will not mention any name—is as long ago as 1893. The arrangement was broken, and the results were very bad. On the other occasion when an attempt was made, it was thought better of, and the arrangement was not broken. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Bridgeman) knows that what I say is correct. If now we are going to create a new precedent, and if the Government, having entered into a bargain, are going to break it because it is not a wise one, then that is the end to Parliamentary government.

Sir F. HALL: I join with the right hon. Baronet, and I say that this Bill is breaking faith with Parliament right through By Section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act of 1888 certain conditions were laid down in the event of purchase. Unfortunately, we have got into a new era, and we find that the Government of the present time do not respect contracts that have been entered into by their predecessors. That is a bad thing for any Government to do. People outside have made their contracts relying upon an Act of Parliament, never expecting and never having known an Act to be torn in pieces. That is what is done by this Bill, and I protest most strongly against it. Personally, I am surprised at the attitude adopted by the Government. We pass measures upstairs and get them through in a legitimate way. Then we
come down here, and we find that, irrespective of what has been done by the Members upstairs, every pressure is used to undo their work.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — NAVY AND ARMY EXPENDITURE.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — PEACE TREATY.

AMERICAN SENATE'S DECISION.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 22nd October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lord E. Talbot.]

Mr. A. HENDERSON: May I ask the Noble Lord the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury if the Government are in a position to give the House any information regarding the reports as to the decision of the American Senate and the adjournment of the ratification of the Peace Treaty sine die? If the report be correct, can the Noble Lord say what effect it is likely to have on the putting into operation of the Peace Treaty?

Lord EDMUND TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): I am sorry to say I am unable to give the right hon. Gentleman any information. I made inquiries at the Foreign Office rather more than half an hour ago, and was told that no information had been received. They promised to telephone me if they got it, but I have not yet heard anything.

Mr. HENDERSON: Will the Noble Lord arrange for a statement to be made by the Government at the opening of business to-morrow on this very important matter?

Lord E. TALBOT: I will mention the matter to my right hon. Friend.

Adjourned accordingly at Ten minutes, after Ten o'clock.